^" 



y o. \y^^/ ^0 "-. 















\ 















SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 



BT 



FKEDERICK BASTIAT. 

WITH PREFACE BT 

HORACE WHITE. 



12mo, clcth, 400 pages, $1.00. 



" Contains the most telling statements of the leading principles 
of Free-Trade, ever published."— iV. Y. Nation. 



WHAT IS FREE-TRADE ? 

AN ADAPTATION FOR AMERICAN READERS OF BASTIAT'S 
" SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION." 

BT 

EMILE WALTEK, 

A Worker. 



12mo., cloth, - 75 cts. 



"Perhaps unsurpassed in the happiness of its illustrations. "- 
N. Y. Nation. 



ESS AY S 



ON 



Political Economy 



BT 

FREDERICK BASTIAT 

English Translation Revised, with Notes 

BT 





" Moins on sait, tnoins on doute; momson a decouvert, moins on wit ce 
qui Teste a decouv7'ir.''''— (The less one knows, the less one doubts; the less 
one discovers, the less he will see what there is to discover.)— Turcot. 



NEW YORK 
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

182 Fifth Avenue 
1880 



rt3>p 



^^ 



Br 1»aHif*r fr*Ba 

Pat. #««» UX). 

AprU ldl4. 

COPTEIGHT, 

1877, 
By G. p. Putnam's Sons. 



PEEFACE BY THE AMEEICAE" EDITOK. 



Political Ecot^omt, in the opinion of most 
men, is but the expression or name for something 
that is typically dry, wearis.Qme, and nnpraotical. 
Owing to the sad record of the follies of legislators 
and governments, of which it especially takes cog- 
nizance, and to the nnfavorable conclusions re- 
specting human development to which some of its 
investigators and teachers have been led, it has 
also received the name of " The Dismal ScienceP 

But if political economy has become popularly 
invested Avitli such attributes, and has been stig- 
matized with a bad name, it is certainly because 
of the methods and manner in which its precepts 
and principles have been taught, rather than be- 
cause the science itself is either repulsive in 
theory or unprofitable in its practical application. 
Eor political economy, in truth, is but the history 
and discussion of the resnlts of the experience of 
mankind in getting a living, and in securing tliat 
degree of material abundance which will admit of 
leisure, without which there can be no attainments 



IV PREFACE BY THE AMEBICAN EDITOE. 

in knowledge. And the all-absorbing feeling of 
interest which in variably takes possession of those 
who through study have come to fully appreciate 
the nature of the science, centers in the hope and 
belief that throno^h the determination and dissemi- 
nation of the principles dedncible from this experi- 
ence of mankind, toil, hereafter, to the masses, will 
be made lighter, justice rendered more certain, 
comfort increased, and abundance be made greater. 
In further illustration of these propositions, at- 
tention is asked to the nature of the work performed 
by the two men, who, more than any others, may 
be considered as having founded, during the last 
century, the science of modern political economy, 
namely, Turgot and Adam Smith. The former be- 
came finance minister of France in 1Y74, under 
Louis XYI., shortly after the death of Louis XY. 
He found France, and in fact all Europe, steeped 
in poverty and threatened with future calamities, 
not because the country was deficient in natural re- 
sources or the people unwilling to labor, but because 
through lack of any appreciation or understanding 
of the most simple economic laws and principles, 
the governmental authorities had so multiplied 
taxes, monopolized trade, and restricted commerce, 
that production was everywhere carried on at the 
minimum of profit, accumulation prevented, and 
distribution so impeded that the people in one 



PKEFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. V 

province were sometimes allowed to starve, wliile 
in an adjoining department there was a surplus 
seeking a market. Turgot attempted reform by 
practically applying and carrying out the element- 
ary principles which are now embodied as axioms 
in every modern treatise on political economy. 
By royal edict issued in January, 1TT6, he made it 
lawful, for the first time in France, for any person, 
man or woman, to follow without hindrance any 
craft or profession ; he abolished all the privileges 
and monopolies of all the guilds, corporations, and 
trading companies of the kingdom; he removed 
restrictions on trade at home, and on commerce 
with foreign nations ; and in place of a system of 
diffused, inquisitorial, infinitesimal taxes, endeav- 
ored to concentrate taxation on a comparatively 
few objects. The following extract from this cele- 
brated edict (made in the name of the king, but 
written by Turgot), which it is believed has never 
befoi'e been translated into English, further illus- 
trates what political economy was understood to be 
by this one of the acknowledged founders of the 
science : — 

" It has come to be a popular notion that the right to 
labor is a matter of royal prerogative ; something that the 
ruler (State) is able to sell ; something which the subject 
ought to buy ; and therefore that the sale of grants and 
privileges to labor, to produce, and to exchange ought to be 
made a source of revenue to the State," We hasten to re- 



Yl PEEFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 

pudiate any sucli principle. God in giving to man wants, 
rendered it necessary tliat he should have property. The 
right to labor is not only the property of all men, but it is 
the first, the most sacred, and the most imprescribable of all 
property. We therefore regard it is as the first obligation 
on our justice, and as an act most worthy of our benefi- 
cence, to free all our subjects from every restriction on this 
most inalienable right of humanity. We therefore abrogate 
every arbitrary institution that does not permit the poor to 
freely enjoy the fruits of their labor; which tramples down 
the sex whose weakness gives it more of wants and less of 
resources, and which in condemning woman to poverty and 
idleness promotes immorality and debauchery ; which ex- 
tinguishes emulation in industry, and renders useless the 
talent of those who are excluded from trade associations ; 
which deprives the State of the industry, the trade, and the 
products of foreigners ; which retards the progress of the 
arts ; and finally, which gives facility to members of cor- 
porations to so intrigue among themselves as to force those 
who are poor to submit to the will of the rich, and so become 
the instruments of monoply and the supporters of schemes, 
the sole effect of Avhich is to enable a few to enjoy more 
than their rightful proportion of these commodities which 
are essential to the subsistence and comfort of the masses." 

This edict, which was little else than the enun- 
ciation of the modern non-interference theory of 
government with production and distribution, was 
cliaracterized at the time by Yoltaire as the great- 
test single step ever taken in civilization. It did 
not, however, succeed, because popular ignorance 
and the interests of individuals, as contradistin- 
guished from the interests of the masses, which 



PEEFACE BY THE AMEEICAN EDITOR. Vll 

undoubtedly regarded then (as tliey regard now) 
the views of students of economic laws as dry 
and unpractical, soon effected the revocation of 
the edict. But had it been maintained, the 
French revolution of 1Y89 — certainly with its 
*' reign of terror" — would probably never have 
occurred. 

Consider also the influence of the work per- 
formed by that other great political economist, 
Adam Smith, as embodied in his " Inquiry into 
the IS'ature and Causes of the Wealth of Is^ations." 
One hundred years after the publication of this 
book, the judgment of an acknowledged financial 
authority,* after a thorough investigation of the 
whole subject was, that it has " caused more money 
to he mfiade^ and prevented more m.oney from heing 
lost, than the writings of any other author j " Avhile 
the opinion of another, f not less qualified to pass 
judgment, is, that the claim to merit of Adam 
Smith's teachings was not "that it made a number 
of rich men richer than they were before, but that 
it invented a beneficial and blessed secret of miti- 
gating the labor of those who were in hard and bit- 
ter circumstances, giving comfort and even reason- 
able abundance, not to scores, or hundreds, or 
thousands, but to millions to whom before life 
was a burden." 
^London Economist, June, 1876. f Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 



Yin PEEFACE BY THE AMEKICAN EDITOR. 

But if political economy is tlius as practical and 
beneficent in its teaching and application as his- 
torical results and the concurrent testimony of 
those best qualified to judge 'agree that it has 
been and is : if it tends to throw lifirht on what 
all mankind are especially interested in doing? 
namely, improving their material welfare, it would 
seem that its study ought to be a matter of special 
interest to all, and its principles and propositions 
anything but dry and uninteresting. Of course, in 
the presentation of its truths and results there is 
a wide difference in the capacity of those who by 
study and investigation have acquired a rightful 
authority to teach. The possession of large 
knowledge and the power of readily and attract- 
ively communicating it, are not often happily 
united in one and the same person ; but in the case 
of the eminent Frenchman, M. Frederick Bastiat 
(born 1801, died in 1850), these two qualities were 
so conjoined that his expositions and illustrations 
of politico-economic topics are acknowledged to be 
more lucid and convincing than those of almost 
any other author. He foresaw that a knowledge 
of the fundamental principles of political economy 
diffused among the masses was the only " safe- 
guard of democracy," and the surest guarantee 
for the continuation and prosperity of all forms 
of government that are based on extended or uni- 



PEEFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. IX 

versal suffrage. He bad the most earnest convic- 
tions of the truth of a proposition laid down by the 
late Harriet Martineau, more than forty years ago, 
in the preface to one of her popular essays, that 
"if it concerns rulers that their measures should 
be wise ; if it concerns the wealthy that their pro- 
perty should be secure, the middling classes that 
their industry should be rewarded, the poor that 
their hardships should be redressed, it concerns all 
that political economy should be understood." 
And with this foresight, and with these convic- 
tions, M. Bastiat especially devoted himself to the 
presentation and elucidation of those questions in 
political economy which are of the utmost impor- 
tance — because they intimately concern the welfare 
of the masses — that the masses should thoroughly 
understand ; and the lack of which understanding 
has not only already occasioned serious troubles 
in almost every civilized community, but threat- 
ens still greater evil for the future. Another 
great merit of his writings is, that they are almost 
whollv free from a blemish that characterizes a 
large number of the works on political economy 
that were designed to be popular, namely, the 
discussion of controverted points and niceties, and 
references to books and authors that have pre- 
ceded, but which are little known, or not accessible 
to the majority of readers. 



X PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 

This little volume is made np of a selection from 
the essays of M. Bastiat that have in a high degree 
these popular and attractive characteristics ; such 
as a presentation of the nature of capital and 
interest^ and the relation of the two ; a discussion, 
under the title " That which is Seen, and that 
which is not Seen^'' of the evils that always result 
from limiting consideration of the effect of an 
economic law, tax, or institution to its immediate 
visible influence and ignoring its ultimate conse- 
quences, introducing in so doing the illustration 
which has passed into many languages of the 
'^ Brolcen Window P Also tlie question of " What 
is Government f " " What is Money f-" and the 
nature, object, and function of wdiat is popularly 
and generally termed ''The Laio^"^ w^ithout refer- 
ence to any particular code or statute. So accepta- 
ble, indeed, have these short selected essays proved 
to the public, that repeated editions of them have 
been published in France, Belgium, Germany, 
Ital}^ England, and the United States; and all 
that the Editor has had to do with the present 
American edition has been to revise the previous 
English translation, which was exceedingly imper- 
fect, and in some instances absolutely without 
meaning. AVhere the text, which was originally 
written to meet the condition of affairs in France, 
at the time of the overthrow of the monarchy and 



PEEFACE BY THE AMEEICAN EDITOE. XI 

the establishment of the republic in 1848, could be 
changed verbally with advantage to meet the dif- 
ferent condition of men, laws, and things at present 
existing in the United States, such changes have 
been made ; — English names being substituted for 
French ones, dollars and cents in place of francs 
and sous, and the like. A few notes pertinent to 
the subject-matter of the text, and drawn mainly 
from the recent economic experience of the United 
States, have also been, added. 

Finally, as no pecuniary advantage whatever 
accrues to the Editor from any revision or repub- 
lication of these essays, he feels at liberty to com- 
mend them to all friends of economic studies and 
reforms in the United States, and to ask their co- 
operation in extending their circulation among 
the people. 

David A. Wells. 
Norwich, Conn., Febrvixxry, 1877. 



OOJ^TEIsTTS. 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

Introduction ...*.. 1 

Ought Capital to Produce Interest? 8 

What is Capital ? 23 

The Sack op Corn 24 

The House 28 

The Plane 30 

What Regulates Interest ? 48 

THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND THAT WHICH IS 

NOT SEEN 70 

The Broken Window 72 

The Disbanding of Troops 77 

Taxes 82 

Theatres, Fine Arts 87 

Public Works 96 

The Middle-Men 100 

Restrictions 109 

Machinery 117 



xiv contents. 

Credit 127 

Algeria , *. 134 

Frugality and Luxury 141 

He who has a Right to Labor has a Right 

TO THE Profit of Labor 150 

GOVERNMENT 154 

WHAT IS MONEY?.... 174 

THE LAW 231 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 



INTRODUCTION 

My object in this treatise is to examine into the 
real nature of the Interest of Capital, for the pur- 
pose of proving that it is lawful, and explaining 
why it should be perpetual. This may appear 
singular, and yet, I confess, I am more afraid I 
may weary the reader by a series of mere truisms. 
But it is no easy matter to avoid this danger, 
when the facts with which we have to deal are 
known to every one by personal, familiar, and 
daily experience. 

But, then, you will say, " What is the use of 
this treatise ? Why explain what everybody 
knows ? " 

But, although this problem appears at first 
sight so very simple, there is more in it than you 
might suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this 
by an example. Thomas lends an instrument of 
labor to-day, which will be entirely destroyed in 
a week, yet the capital will not produce the less 
interest to Thomas or his heirs, through all eter- 
1 



^A CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

nity. Reader, can you lionestly say that you un- 
derstand the reason of this? 

It would be a waste of time to seek any satis- 
factory explanation from the writings of econo- 
mists. They have not thrown much light upon 
the reasons of the existence of interest. For this 
they are not to be blamed ; for at the time they 
wrote, its lawfulness was not called in question. 
IS^ow, however, times are altered 5 the case is dif- 
ferent. Men, wdio consider themselves to be in 
ads'ance of their age, have organized an active 
crusade against capital and interest ; it is the pro- 
ductiveness of capital which they are attacking ; 
not certain abuses in the administration of it, but 
the principle itself. 

Some years ago a journal was established in 
Paris by M. Proudhon, especially to promote this 
crusade, which for a time is reported to have had 
a very large circulation. The first number that 
was issued contained the following declaration of 
its principles : — " The productiveness of capital, 
which is condemned by Christianity under the 
name of usury, is the true cause of misery, the 
true origin of destitution, the eternal obstacle to 
the establishment of a true Pepublic." 

Another French journal, La Ihtche Popidaire^ 
also thus expresses its views on this subject : — 
*' But above all, labor ought to be free ; that is, 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 3 

it onglit to be organized in such a manner that 
money-lenders mid owners or controllers of capitcd 
'sJioidd not l)e jpaid for granting tlie opportiinitj^ to 
labor, and for which privilege they charge as liigh 
a price as possible. The only thought that I notice 
here, is that expressed by the words in the italics, 
which imply a denial of the right to take interest. 

A noted leader among the French Socialists, 
M. Thore, also thus expresses himself : — ■ 

"The revolution will always have to be recom- 
menced, so long as we occupy ourselves with con- 
sequences only, without having the logic or the 
courage to attack the principle itself. This prin- 
ciple is capital, false property, interest, and usury, 
which by old custom is made to weigh upon 
labor. 

"Ever since the aristocrats invented the in- 
credible fiction, that capital j)ossesses the power of 
reproducing itself the workers have been at the 
mercy of the idle. 

" At the end of a year, will you find an addi- 
tional dollar in a bag of one hundred dollars? 
At the end of fourteen years will your dollars 
have doubled in your bag? 

" Will a work of industry or of skill produce 
another, at the end of fourteen years ? 

" Let us begin, then, by demolishing this fatal 
fiction." 



4: CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

I have quoted the above, merely for the sake 
of establishing the fact that many persons con- 
sider the productiveness of capital a false, a fatal, 
and an iniquitous principle.* But quotations are 

* In this essay, written for liis countrymen, M. Bastiat 
quotes exclusively, as was natural, from French writers, for 
the purpose of illustrating the views of those who maintain 
that the loan of capital for interest or hire is iniquitous 
from a moral point of view, and economically considered un- 
profitable to the people collectively. But quotations of a 
similar character might equally well have been made from 
English and American writers, who in some instances are 
men who have attained to no little reputation. Thus, for 
example, John Raskin, the well-known English art critic, in 
his Pots Glavigera, thus reasons respecting " the immoral 
nature and injurious effects" of the taking of interest, 
*' Usury," he says, " is properly the taking of money for the 
loan or use of anything (over and above what pays for wear 
and tear), such use involving no care or labor on the part of 
the lender. It includes all investments of capital whatso- 
ever, i-eturning ' dividends,'" as distiugnished from labor 
wages or profits. Thus anybody who works on a railroad as 
plate-layer or stoker has a right to wages for his work ; and 
any inspector of wheels or rails has a right to payment for 
such inspection ; but idle persons who have only paid a hun- 
dred pounds towards the road-making, have a right to the 
return of the hundred pounds — and no more. If they take a 
farthing more, they are usurers. They may take fifty pounds 
for two years, twenty-five for four, five for twenty, or one for 
a hundred. But the first farthing they take more than their 
hundred, be it sooner or later, is usury. 

"Again, when we build a house, and let it, we have a right 
to as much rent as will return us the wages of our labor, and 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 5 

superfluous ; it is well known that large num- 
bers of poor people attribute their poverty to 
what they call the tyranny of eajpital j meaning 
thereby the unwillingness of the owners of capi- 

tlie sum of our outlay. If, as in ordinary cases, not 
laboring with, our hands or liead, we liave simply paid — say 
one thousand pounds — to get the house built, we have a 
right to the one thousand pounds back again at once, if we 
sell it ; or, if we let it, to five hundred pounds rent dur- 
ing two years, or one hundred pounds rent during ten years 
or ten pounds rent during a hundred years. But if, sooner 
or later, we take a pound more than the thousand, we are 
usurers. 

" And thus in all other possible or conceivable cases, the 
moment our capital is * increased ' by having lent it, be it 
but in the estimation of a hair, that hair's breadth of increase 
is usury, just as much as stealing a farthing is theft, no less 
than stealing a million. 

" But usury is worse than theft, in so far as it is obtained 
either by deceiving people or distressing them ; generally 
by both ; and finally by deceiving the usurer himself, who 
comes to think that usury is a real increase, and that money 
can grow of money ; whereas all usury is increase to one per- 
son only by decrease to another; and every grain of calcu- 
lated Increment to the rich is balanced by its mathematical 
equivalent of Decrement to the poor." And again: " We need 
not fear our power of becoming good Christians yet, if we 
will ; so only that we understand, finally and utterly, that 
all gain, increase, interest, or whatever else you call it or 
think it, to the lender of capital, is loss, decrease, and dis- 
interest to the borrower of capital. Every farthing we, who 
lend the tool, make, the borrower of the tool loses. And all 
the idiotical calculations of what money comes to, in so 



6 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

tal to allow others to use it without security for 
its safe return and compensation for its use. 

I believe there is not a man in the world, who 
is aware of the whole importance of this question : 
"Is the interest of capital natural, just, and 
lawful, and as useful to the borrower who pays, 
as to the lender who receives ? *' 

You answer, 'No ; I answer, Yes. Then we 
differ entirely ; but it is of the utmost importance 

many years, simply ignore tlie debit side of the book, on 
whicli tlie Laborer's Deficit is precisely equal to tlie Capi- 
talist's EflBcit. I saw an estimate made by some blockhead 
in an American paper, the other day, of the weight of gold 
which a hundred years' ' interest ' on such and such funds 
would load the earth with ! Not even of wealth in that 
solid form, could the poor wretch perceive so much of the 
truth as that the gold he put on the earth above, he must 
dig out of the eartli below ! But the mischief in real life is 
far deeper on tlie negative side, than the good oii the positive. 
The debt of the borrower loads his heart, cramps his hands, 
and dulls his labor. The gain of the lender hardens his 
heart, fouls his brain, and puts every means of mischief into 
his otherwise clumsy and artless hands." 

As an illustration of similar views of American origin, a 
pamphlet on Labor Reform, by John T. Campbell, of Lidiana, 
published in 1872, and which has attained considerable popu- 
larity and circulation, thus commences a chapter on the 
causes affecting the distribution of wealth : 

** What, then, are the means used by which wealth which 
labor produces is transferred to the possession of the non-pro- 
ducing few? It is simply an instrument of refined robbery. 
It is money and its interest." 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 7 

to' discover which of ns is in the right, otherwise 
we shall incur the danger of making a false solu- 
tion of the question, a matter of opinion. If the 
error is on my side, however, the evil would not 
be so great. It must be inferred that I know 
nothing about the true interests of the masses, or 
the march of human progress ; and that all my 
arguments are but as so many grains of sand, by 
which the car of the revolution will certainly not 
be arrested. 

But if, on the contrary, men like Proudhon and 
Thore in France (John Ruskin in England, and 
others in the United States) are deceiving them- 
selves, it follows that they are leading the people 
astray — that they are showing them evil where it 
does not exist; and thus giving a false direction 
to their ideas, to their antipathies, to their dis- 
likes, and to their attacks. It follows that the 
misguided people are rushing into a horrible and 
absurd struggle, in which victory would be more 
fatal than defeat ; since, according to this sup- 
position, the result would be the realization of 
universal evils, the destruction of every means 
of emancipation, the consummation of its own 
misery. 

This is just what M. Proudhon has acknowl- 
edged, with perfect good faith. " The foundation 
stone," he told me, '' of my system is the gratid' 



8 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST: 

iousness of credit. If I am mistaken in tliis, 
Socialism is a vain dream." I add, it is a dream, 
in which the people are tearing themselves to 
pieces. Will it, therefore, be a cause for surprise, 
if, when they awake, they find themselves man- 
gled and bleeding? Such a danger as this is 
enough to justify me fully, if, in the course of the 
discussion, I allow myself to be led into some 
trivialities and some prolixity. 

OUGHT CAPITAL TO PRODUCE INTEREST? 

I address this treatise to working men, more 
especially to those who have enrolled themselves 
under the banner of Socialist democracy. I pro- 
ceed to consider these two questions : — 

1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, 
and with justice, that capital should produce in- 
terest ? 

2d. Is it consistent with the nature of things, 
and with justice, that the interest of capital should 
be perpetual ? 

The working men everywhere will certainly ac- 
knowledge that a more important subject could 
not be discussed. 

Since the world began, it has been allowed, at 
least in part, that capital ought to produce in- 
terest. But latterly it has been affirmed that 
herein lies the very social error which is the 



CAPITAL AND INTEBEST. 9 

cause of pauperism and inequality. It is, there- 
fore, very essential to know now on what ground 
we stand. 

For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the 
workers have a right to revolt against social order, 
as it exists. It is in vain to tell them that they 
onght to have recourse to legal and pacific means : 
it would be a hypocritical recommendation. 
When on the one side there is a strong man, 
poor, and a victim of robbery — on the other, a 
weak man, but rich, and a robber — it is singular 
enough that we should say to the former, with a 
hope of persuading him, " Wait till your oppres- 
sor voluntarily renounces oppression, or till it 
shall cease of itself." This cannot be ; and those 
who tell us that capital is by nature unproductive, 
ought to know that they are provoking a terrible 
and disastrous struct o^le. 

If, on the contrary, the interest of capital is 
natural, lawful, consistent with the general good, 
as favorable to the borrower as to the lender, 
the economists who deny it, the writers who 
grieve over this pretended social wound, are 
leading the workmen into a senseless and unjust 
efibrt which can have no other issue than the 
misfortune of all. In fact, they are arming labor 
against capital. So much the better, if these two 
powers are really antagonistic; and may the 



10 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

struggle soon be ended ! But, if they are in har- 
mony, the struggle is the greatest evil which can 
be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, 
that there is not a more important question than 
this : — " Is the interest of capital rightful or 
not ? " In the former case, yon must immediately 
renounce the struggle to which you are being 
urged ; in the second, you must carry it on brave- 
ly, and to the end. 

Productiveness of capital — perpetuity of in- 
terest. These are difficult questions. I must en- 
deavor to make myself clear. And for that pur- 
pose I shall have recourse to example rather than 
to demonstration ; or rather, I shall place the de- 
monstration in the example. I begin by acknowl- 
edging that, at lirst sight, it may appear strange 
that capital xshould pretend to a remuneration, and 
above all to a perpetual remuneration. You will 
say, "Here are two men. One of them works 
from morning till night, from one year's end 
to another; and if he consumes all which he has 
gained, even by superior energy, he remains poor. 
When Christmas comes he is in no better condition 
than he was at the beginning of the year, and has 
no other prospect but to begin again. The other 
man does nothing, eitlier with his hands or his 
head ; or at least, if he makes use of them at all, 
it is only for his own pleasure ; it is allowable for 



CAPITAX AND INTEREST. 11 

him to do nothing, for he has an income. He 
does not work, yet he lives well ; he has every- 
thing in abundance ; delicate dishes, sumptuous 
furniture, elegant equipages ; nay, he even con- 
sumes, daily, things which the workers have been 
obliged to produce by the sweat of their brow, 
for these things do not make themselves ; and, as 
far as he is concerned, he has had no hand in 
their production. It is the workmen who have 
caused this corn to grow, elaborated this furniture, 
woven these carpets ; it is our waives and daugh- 
ters who have spun, cut-out, sewed, and embroid- 
ered these stufis. We work, then, for him and 
for ourselves ; for him first, and then for our- 
selves, if there is anything left. But here is some- 
thing more striking still. If the former of these 
two men, the worker, consumes within the year 
any profit which may have been left him in that 
year, he is always at the point from which he 
started, and his destiny condemns him to move 
incessantly in a perpetual circle, and in a monotony 
of exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. 
But if the other, the 'gentleman,' consumes his 
yearly income in the year, he has, the year after, 
in those which follow, and through all eternity, 
an income always equal, inexhaustible, ^;>57;^6^'waZ. 
Capital, then, is remunerated, not only once or 
twice, but an indefinite number of times ! So 



12 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

that, at the end of a hundred years, a family 
which has placed 20,000 francs,* at five per cent, 
will have had 100,000 francs ; and tliis will not 
prevent from having 100,000 francs more in the 
following century. In other words, for 20,000 
francs, which represents its labor, it will have 
levied, in two centuries, a tenfold value on the 
labor of others. In this social arrangement is 
there not a monstrous evil to be reformed ? And 
this is not all. If it should please this family to 
curtail its enjoyments a little — to spend, for ex- 
ample, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000 — it may, 
without any labor, without any other trouble be- 
yond that of investing 100 francs a year, increase 
its capital and its income in such rapid progres- 
sion that he will soon be in a position to consume 
as much as a hundred families of industrious 
workmen. Does not all this go to prove that 
society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, 
which ought to be eradicated at the risk of some 
temporary suffering ? " 

These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritat- 
ing reflections which must be excited in your 
minds by the active and superficial crusade which 
is being carried on against capital and interest. 
On the other hand, there are moments in which, 
I am convinced, doubts are awakened in your 

* A franc is 19.3 cents of our money. 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 13 

minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say 
to yourselves sometimes : " But to assert that 
capital ought not to produce interest, is to say that 
he who has created instruments of labor, or mate- 
rials, or provisions of any kind, ought to yield 
them up without compensation. Is that just ? 
And then, if it is so, who would lend these in- 
struments, these materials, these provisions ? who 
would take care of them ? who even would create 
them ? Every one would consume his proportion, 
and the human race would not advance a step. 
Capital would be no longer accumulated, since there 
would be no interest in accumulating it. It would 
become exceedingly scarce. This would be a most 
singular step for the obtaining of loans gratui- 
tously ! A singular means of improving the con- 
dition of borrowers, to make it impossible for 
them to borrow at any price ! What would be- 
come of labor itself ? for there will be no money 
advanced, and not one single kind of labor can 
be mentioned, not even the chase, which can be 
pursued without capital of some kind. And, as 
for ourselves, what would become of us ? What ! 
we are not to be allowed to borrow, in order to 
work in the prime of life, nor to lend, that we 
may enjoy repose in its decline ? The law will 
rob us of the prospect of laying by a little prop- 
erty, because it will prevent us from gaining any 



14 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

advantage from it. It will deprive us of all stim- 
ulus to save at the present time, and of all hope 
of repose for the futm'e. It is useless to exhaust 
ourselves with fatigue; we must abandon the idea 
of leaving our sons and daughters a little prop- 
erty, since the new views render it useless, for we 
should become traffickers in the toil of men if we 
were to lend it on interest. Alas ! the world which 
these persons would open before us, as an imagin- 
ary good, is still more dreary and desolate than 
that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, 
is not banished from the latter." Thus, in all 
respects, and in every point of view, the question is 
a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution. 
The French civil code has a chapter entitled, 
"On the manner of transmitting property." 
When a man by his labor has made some use- 
ful things — in other words, when he has cre- 
ated a value — it can only pass into the hands 
of another by one of the following modes : — as a 
gift, hy the right of inheritance, by exchange, 
loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, ex- 
cept the last, although it plays a greater part in 
the world than we may think. A gift needs no 
definition. It is essentially voluntary and spon- 
taneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, 
and the receiver cannot be said to have any right 
to it. Without a doubt, morality and religion 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 15 

make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to de- 
prive themselves voluntarily of that which they 
possess, in favor of their less fortunate brethren. 
But this is an entirely moral obligation. If it 
were to be asserted on principle, admitted in 
practice, sanctioned by law, that every man has a 
right to the property of another, the gift would 
have no merit — charity and gratitude would be 
no longer virtues. Besides, such a doctrine would 
suddenly and universally arrest labor and produc- 
tion, as severe cold congeals water and suspends 
animation ; for who would work if there was no 
longer to be any connection between labor and 
the satisfying of our wants? Political economy 
has not treated of gifts. It has hence been con- 
cluded that it disowns them, and that it is there- 
fore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridicu- 
lous accusation. That science which treats of the 
laws resulting from the recijproGity of sei'vices 
had no business to inquire into the consequences 
of generosity with respect to him who receives, 
nor into its effects, perliaps still more precious, on 
him who gives. Such considerations belong evi- 
dently to the science of morals. We must allow 
the sciences to have limits ; above all, we must 
not accuse them of denying or undervaluing 
what they look upon as foreign to their depart- 
ment. 



16 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

The right of inheritance, against whicli so mucli 
lias been objected of late, is one of the forms of 
gift, and assuredly the most natural of all. That 
which a man has produced, lie may consume, ex- 
chano-e, or mve. What can be mere natural than 
that he should give it to his children ? It is this 
power, more than any other, which inspires him 
with courage to labor and to save. Do you know 
why the principle of right of inheritance is thus 
called in question ? Because it is imagined that 
the property thus transmitted is plundered from 
the masses. This is a fatal error. Political econ- 
omy demonstrates, in the most peremptory man- 
ner, that all value produced is a creation which 
does no harm to any person whatever. For that 
reason it may be consumed, and, still more, trans- 
mitted, without hurting any one ; but I shall not 
pursue these reflections, which do not belong to 
the subject. 

Exchange is the principal department of politi- 
cal economy, because it is by far the most frequent 
method of transmitting property, according to the 
free and voluntary acquiescence in the laws and 
effects of which this science treats. 

Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity 
of services. The parties say between themselves, 
*' Give me this, and I will give you that;" or, 
" Do this for me, and I will do that for you." It 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 17 

is well to remark (for tliis will throw a new light 
oil the notion of value) that the second form is 
always implied in the lirst. When it is said, ''Do 
this for me, and I will do that for you," an ex- 
change of service for service is proposed. Again, 
when it is said, " Give me this, and I will give 
you that," it is the same as saying, " I yield to 
,you what I have done, yield to me what you have 
done." The labor is past, instead of present ; but 
the exchange is not the less governed by the com- 
parative valuation of the two services ; so that it 
is quite correct to say that the principle of value 
is in the services rendered and received on account 
of the productions exchanged, rather than in the 
productions themselves. 

In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged 
directly. There is a medium, which is termed 
ononey. Paul has completed a coat, for which lie 
wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a 
little oil, a visit from a doctor, a ticket for the 
play, etc. The exchange cannot be effected in 
kind, so what does Paul do ? He first exchanges 
his coat for some money, which is called selling / 
then he exchanges this money again for the things 
which he wants, which is csdled purchasing ; and 
now, only, has the reciprocity of service com- 
pleted its circuit ; now, only, the labor and the 
compensation are balanced in the same Individ- 



18 - CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

ua], — ^' I liave done this for society, it Las done 
that for me." In a word, it is only now that the 
exchange is actually accomplished. Thus, noth- 
ing can be more correct than this observation of 
J. B. Say : — " Since the introduction of money, 
every exchange is resolved into two elements, 
sale and purchase. It is the reunion of these 
two elements which renders the exchange com- 
plete." 

We must remark, also, that the constant appear- 
ance of money in every exchange has overturned 
and misled all our ideas : men have ended in 
thinking that money was true riches, and that 
to multiply it was to multiply services and pro- 
ducts. Hence the protecti-ve system ; hence 
paper money ; hence the celebrated aphorism, 
^' What one gains the other loses ; " and of the 
errors which have impoverished the earth, and im- 
brued it with blood.* After much investigation 
it has been found, that in order to make the two 
services exchanged of equivalent value, and in 
order to render the exchange eqxiitahle^ the best 
means was to allow it to be free. However plausi- 
ble, at first sight, the intervention of the State 
might be, it was soon perceived that it is always 
oppressive to one or other of the contracting 

* This error M. Bastiat afterward specially combated aud 
exposed in a pamphlet, entitled Cursed Money. 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 19 

parties. Wheii we look into these subjects, we 
are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, 
that equal value results from liberty. We have, 
in fact, no other means of knowing whether, at a 
given moment, two services are of the same value, 
but that of examining whether they can be readily 
and freely exchanged. Allow the State, which is 
the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or 
the other, and from that moment all the means 
of appreciation will be complicated and entangled, 
instead of becomino; clear. It ouo-ht to be the 
part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to 
repress artifice and fraud ; that is, to secure lib- 
erty, and not to violate it. I have enlarged a 
little upon exchange, although loan is my princi- 
pal object : my excuse is, that I conceive that 
there is in a loan an actual exchange, an actual 
service rendered by the lender, and which makes 
the borrower liable to an equivalent service, — two 
services, whose comparative value can only be 
appreciated, like that of all possible services, by 
fi-eedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect rightfulness 
of what is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, 
will be explained and understood. Let us consider 
what is involved in a loan. 

Suppose two men exchange two services or two 
objects, whose equal value is beyond all dispute. 
Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, " Give 



20 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

me ten ten-cent pieces, I will give you a silver 
dollar." We cannot imagine an equal value more 
unquestionable. When the bargain is made, nei- 
ther party has any claim upon the other. The 
exchanged services are equal. Then it follows, 
that if one of the parties wishes to introduce into 
the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to 
himself, but unfavorable to the other party, he 
must agree to a second clause, which shall re- 
establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. 
It would be absurd to deny the justice of a second 
clause of compensation. Thisgranted, we will sup- 
pose that Peter, after having said to Paul, " Give 
me ten ten-cent pieces, I will give you a dollar," 
adds, ''You shall give me the ten ten-cent pieces 
noio^ and I will give you the silver dollar in a 
year I ^^ it is very evident that this new proposi- 
tion alters the claims and advantages of the bar- 
gain ; that it alters the proportion of the two ser- 
vices. Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, 
that Peter asks of Paul a new and an additional 
service ; one of a different kind ? Is it not' as if he 
had said, " Kender me the service of allowing me 
to use for my profit, for a year, the dollar which 
belongs to you, and which you might have used for 
yourself ? " And what good reason have you to 
maintain that Paul is bound to render this espe- 
cial service gratuitously ; that he has no right to 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 21 

demand anytliing more in consequence of this 
requisition ; that the State ought to interfere to 
force him to submit'^ Is it not incomprehensible 
that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine 
to the people, can reconcile it with his principle 
of the reGiprocity of service f Here I have intro- 
duced money ; I have been led to do so by a desire 
to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of 
a perfect and indisputable equality of value. I 
was anxious to be prepared for objections ; but, 
on the other hand, my demonstration would have 
been more striking still, if I had illustrated my 
principle by an agreement for exchanging of ser- 
vices or commodities directly. 

Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a 
value so perfectly equal that their proprietors are 
disposed to exchange them even-handed, without 
excess or abatement. In fact let the bargain be 
settled by a lawyer. At the moment of each 
taking possession, the ship-owner says to the house- 
owner, " Yery well ; the transaction is completed, 
and nothing can prove its perfect equity better 
than OTir free and voluntary consent. Our con- 
ditions thus fixed, I will propose to you a little 
practical modification. You shall let me have 
your house to-day, but I will not put you in pos- 
session of my ship for a year ; and the reason I 
make this demand of you is, that, during this 



22 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

year of delay ^ I wish to use the vesseh" That 
we limy not be embarrassed by considerations rel- 
ative to the deterioration of the thinsj lent, I will 
suppose the ship-owner to add, " I will engage, at 
the end of the year, to hand over to you the ves- 
sel in the state in which it is to-day." I ask of 
every candid man, if the house-owner has not a 
right to answer, " The new clause which you pro- 
pose entirely alters the proportion or the equal 
value of the exchanged services. By it I shall be 
deprived, for the space of a year, both at once of 
my house and of your vessel. By it you will 
make use of both. If, in the absence of this 
clause, the bargain was just, for the same reason 
the clause is injurious to me. It stipulates for a 
loss to me, and a gain to you. You are requir- 
ing of me a new service ; I have a right to refuse, 
or to require of you, as a compensation, an equiva- 
lent service." If the parties are agreed upon this 
compensation, the principle of which is incon- 
testable, we can easily distinguish two transac- 
tions in one, two exchanges of service in one. 
First, there is the exchange of the house for 
the vessel ; after this, there is the delay granted 
by one of the parties, and tlie compensation cor- 
responding to this delay yielded by the other. 
These two new services take the generic and ab- 
stract names of credit and interest. But names 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 23 

do not change the nature of things; and I 
defy any one to disprove that there exists here, 
when all is done, a service for a service, or a 
reciprocity of services. To say that one of these 
services does not challenge the other, to say that 
the first ought to be rendered gratuitously, with- 
out injustice, is to say that injustice consists in 
the reciprocity of service, — that justice consists in 
one of the parties giving and not receiving, which 
is a contradiction in terms. 

But, to give an idea of interest and its mechan- 
ism, allow me to make use of two or three anec- 
dotes. But, first, I must say a few words upon 
capital. 

WHAT IS CAPITAL? 

There are some persons who imagine that capi- 
tal is money, and this is precisely the reason why 
they deny its productiveness ; for, as John Ruskin 
and others say, dollars are not endowed with the 
power of reproducing themselves. But it is not 
true that capital and money are the same thing. 
Before the discovery of the precious metals, there 
were capitalists in the world ; and I venture to say 
that at that time, as now, everybody was a capi- 
talist, to a certain extent. 

What is capital, then ? It is composed of three 
things : — 



24: CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

1st. Of the materials upon which men operate, 
when these materials have already a value com- 
municated by human effort, which has bestowed 
upon them the property of exchangeability — wool, 
flax, leather, silk, wood, etc. 

2d. Instruments which are used for working 
— tools, machines, ships, carriages, etc. 

3d. Provisions which are consumed during 
labor — victuals, stuffs, houses, etc. 

"Without these things the labor of man would 
be unproductive and almost void ; yet these very 
things have required much work, especially at 
first. This is the reason that so much value has 
been attached to the possession of them, and also 
that it is perfectly lawful to exchange and to sell 
them, to make a profit off them if used, to gain 
remuneration from them if lent. 

^NTow for my anecdotes. 

THE SACK OF CORN? 

"William, in other respects as poor as Job, and 
obliged to earn his bread by day-labor, became, 
nevertheless, by some inheritance, the owner of a 
fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceed- 
ingly anxious to cultivate it. " Alas ! " said he, 
''to make ditches, to raise fences, to break the 
soil, to clear away the brambles and stones, to 
plow it, to sow it, might bring me a living in a 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 25 

year or two ; but certainly not to-dav, or to-mor- 
row. It is impossible to set about farming it, 
without previousl}^ saving some provisions for my 
subsistence until the harvest ; and I know, by ex- 
perience, that preparatory labor is indispensable 
in order to render present labor productive." 
The good William was not content with making 
these reflections. He resolved to work by the 
day, and to save something from his w^ages to buy 
a spade and a sack of corn, without which things 
he must give up his agricultural projects. He 
acted so well, was so active and steady, that he 
soon saw himself in possession of the wished-for 
sack of corn. " I shall have enough to live upon 
till my field is covered with a rich harvest.'' Just 
as he was starting, David came to borrow his 
accumulation of food of him. "If you will lend 
me this sack of corn," said David, " you will do 
me a great service ; for I have some very lucra- 
tive work in view, which I cannot possibly under- 
take, for want of provisions to live upon till it is 
finished." " I was in the same case," answered 
William ; " and if I have now secured bread for 
several months, it is at the expense of my arms 
and my stomach. Upon what principle of justice 
can it be devoted to the carrying out of your en- 
terprise instead of nnine f " 

You may well believe that the bargain was a 

2 



26 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

long one. However, it was finished at length, 
and on these conditions : — 

First — David promised to give back, at the 
end of the year, a sack of corn of the same 
quality, and of the same weight, without missing 
a single grain. " This first clause is perfectly 
just," said he, "for without it William would 
give^ and not lend^ 

Secondly — He further engaged to deliver one- 
Jialf bushel of corn for every five hush els origin- 
ally borrowed ,, when the loan was rehirned. " This 
clause is no less just than the other," thought he ; 
" for unless William would do me a service with- 
out compensation, he would infiict upon himself 
a privation — lie would renounce his cherished en- 
terprise—he would enable me to accomplish mine 
— he would cause me to enjoy for a year the 
fruits of his savings, and all this gratuitously. 
Since he dela3^s the cultivation of his land, since 
he enables me to prosecute a lucrative employ- 
ment, it is quite natural that I should let him 
partake, in a certain proportion, of the profits 
which- 1 shall gain by the sacrifice he makes of his 
own profits." 

On his side, William, who was something of a 
scholar, made this calculation : — '' Since, by vir- 
tue of the first clause, the sack of corn will return 
to me at the end of a year," he said to himself, 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 27 

" I shall be able to lend it again ; it will return 
to me at the end of the second year ; I may lend 
it again, and so on, to all eternity. However, I 
cannot deny that it will have been eaten long ago. 
It is singular that I should be perpetually the 
owner of a sack of corn, although the one I have 
lent has been consumed forever. But this is ex- 
plained thus : — It will be consumed in the service 
of David. It will put it into the power of 
David to produce a greater value ; and conse- 
quently, David will be able to restore me a sack 
of corn, or the value of it, without having suffered 
the slightest injury ; but, on the contrary, having 
gained from the use of it. And as regards myself, 
this value ought to be my property, as long as I 
do not consume it myself. If I had used it to 
clear my land, I should have received it again in 
the form of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I 
lend it, and shall recover it in the form of repay- 
ment. 

" From the second clanse, I gain another piece 
of information. At the end of the year I shall 
be in possession of one bushel of corn for every 
ten that I may lend. If, then, I were to con- 
tinue to work by the day, and to save part of my 
wages, as I have been doing, in the course of 
time I should be able to lend two sacks of corn ; 
then three ; then four ; and when I should have 



28 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

gained a sufficient number to enable me to live on 
these additions of a half a bushel over and above 
and on account of every ten bushels lent, I shall 
be at liberty to take a little repose in my old 
age. But how is this ? In this case, shall I not 
be living at the expense of others ? No, cer- 
tainly, for it has been proved that in lending I 
perform a service ; I make more profitable the 
labor of my borrowers, and only deduct a trifling 
part of the excess of production, due to my lend- 
ings and savings. It is a marvelous thing that 
a man may thus realize a leisure which injures no 
one, and for which he cannot be reproached with- 
out injustice." 

THE HOUSE. 



Again, Thomas had a house. In building it, 
lie had extorted nothing from any one whatever. 
He obtained it by his own personal labor, or, 
which is the same thing, by the labor of others 
justly rewarded. His first care was to make a 
bargain with an architect, in virtue of which, on 
condition of the payment of a hundred dollars a 
year, the latter engaged to keep the house in con- 
stant good repair. Thomas was already congratu- 
lating himself on the happy days which ho hoped 
to spend in this pleasant home, which our laws 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 29 

declared to be his own exclusive property. But 
Richard wished to use it also as his residence. 

" How can you think of snch a thing ? " said 
Thomas to Richard. • " It is I who have built it ; 
it has cost me ten years of painful labor, and now 
you would come in and take it for your enjoy- 
ment ? " They agreed to refer the matter to 
judges. They chose no profound economists — 
there were none such in the country. But they 
found some just and sensible men ; it all comes 
to the same thing ; political economy, justice, 
good sense, are all the same thing. And here is 
the decision made by the judges : — If Richard 
wishes to occupy Thomas's house for a year, he 
is bound to submit to three conditions. The 
first is to quit at the end of the year, and to 
restore the house in good repair, saving the inevi- 
table decay resulting from mere duration. The 
second, to refund to Thomas the one hundred dol- 
lars which Thomas pays annually to the architect 
to repair the injuries of time ; for these injuries 
taking place whilst the house is in the service of 
Richard, it is perfectly just that lie should bear 
the expense. The third, that he should render to 
Thomas a service equivalent to that which he 
receives. And as to what shall constitute this 
equivalence of services, this must be left for 
Thomas and Richard to mutually agree upon. 



30 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

THE PLANE. 

One fnrtlier illustration to the same effect. 
A very long time ago there lived, in a poor 
village, a joiner, who was a philosopher, as all my 
heroes are in their way. James worked from 
morning till night with his two strong arms, but 
his brain was not idle for all that. He was fond 
of reviewing his actions, their causes, and their 
effects. He sometimes said to himself, " With my 
hatchet, my saw, and my hammer, I can make 
only coarse furniture, and can only get the pay 
for such. If I only had a plane^ I should please 
my customers more, and they would pay me 
more. But this is all right ; I can only expect ser- 
vices proportioned to those which I render myself. 
Yes ! I am resolved, I will make myself s. plane. ''^ 
\ However, just as he w^as setting to work, James 
reflected further : — " I work for my customers 300 
days in the year. If I give ten to making my 
plane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days 
w^ill remain for me to make ray furniture. Kow, 
in order that I be not the loser in this matter, I 
must gain henceforth, with the help of the plane, 
as much in 290 days as I now do in 300. I must 
even gain more ; for unless I do so, it would not 
be worth my while to venture npon any innova- 
tions." James began to calculate. He satisfied 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 31 

timself that lie should sell his finished furniture 
at a price which woidd amply compensate him for 
the ten days devoted to the plane ; and when no 
doubt remained in his mind on this point, he set 
to work. I heg the reader to remark, tliat the 
power which exists in the tool to increase the 
productiveness of labor, is the basis for the suc- 
cessful solution of the experiment which James 
the joiner proposed to make. 

At the end of ten days, James had in his pos- 
session an admirable plane, which lie valued all 
the more for having made it himself. He danced 
for joy, — for, like the girl with her basket of 
eggs, he reckoned in anticipation all the profits 
which he expected to derive from the ingenious 
instrument ; but, more fortunate than she, he was 
not reduced to the necessity of saying good-by, 
when the eggs were smashed, to the expected calf, 
cow, pig, as w^ell as the eggs, together. He was 
building his fine castles in the air, when he was in- 
terrupted by his acquaintance William, a joiner 
in the neighboring village. William having ad- 
mired the plane, was struck with the advantages 
which might be gained from it. He said to 
James : — 

W. You must do me a service. 

e/". What service ? 

W. Lend me the plane for a year. 



32 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

As might be expected, James at this proposal 
did not fail to cry out, " How can you think of 
such a thing, William ? But if I do 3^ou this 
service, what will you do for me in return ? " 

W. Nothing. Don't you know that John Kus- 
kin says a loan ought to be gratuitous ? Don't 
you know that Prudhon and other notable writers 
and friends of the laboring classes assert that 
capital is naturally unproductive? Don't you 
known that all the new school of liberal advanced 
writers say we ought to have perfect fraternity 
among men ? If you only do me a service for 
the sake of receiving one from me in return, 
what merit would you have? 

J. William, my friend, fraternity does not mean 
that all the sacrifices are to be on one side ; if so,- 
I do not see why they should not be on yours. 
WhetJier a loan should be gratuitous I don't know ; 
but I do know that if I were to lend you my 
plane for a year it would be giving it you. To 
tell you the truth, that was not what I made it 
for. 

W. Well, we will say nothing about the mod- 
ern maxims discovered by the friends of the work- 
ing classes. I ask you to do me a service ; vrhat 
service do you ask me in return ? 

«7i First, then, in a year the plane will be used 
up, it will be good for nothing. It is only just 



CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 33 

tliat you slionid let me have another exactly like 
it ; or that you should give me money enough to 
get it repaired ; or tliat you should supply me the 
ten days which I must devote to replacing it. 

W. This is perfectly just. I submit to these 
conditions. I engage to return it, or to let you 
have one like it, or the value of the same. I think 
you must be satisfied with this, and can require 
nothin(2: further. 

«/! I think otherwise. I made the plane for 
myself, and not for you. I expected to gain 
some advantage from it, by my work being better 
finished and better paid ; by improving my con- 
dition. What reason is there that I should 
make the plane, and you should gain the profit ? 
I might as well ask you to giv-e me your saw and 
hatchet ! What a confusion ! Is it not natural 
that each should keep what he has made with 
his own hands, as well as his hands tliemselves ? 
To use without recompense the hands of another, 
I call slavery ; to use without recompense the 
plane of another, can this be called fraternity? 

W. But, then, I have agreed to return it to jou 
at the end of a year, as well polished and as sharp 
as it is now. 

e/. We have nothing to do with next year ; we 
are sj^eaking of this year. I have made the plane 
for the sake of improving my work and condition ; 



34: CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you 
who will gain the profit of it during the whole of 
that time. I am not bound to do you such a ser- 
vice without receiving anything from you in re- 
turn ; therefore, if you wish for my plane, inde- 
pendently of the entire restoration already bar- 
gained for, you must do me a service which we will 
now discuss ; you must grant me remuneration. 

And this was what the two finally agreed 
upon : — William granted a remuneration calcula- 
ted in such a way that, at the end of the year, 
James received liis plane quite new, and in addi- 
tion a new plank, as a compensation for the ad- 
vantages of Avliicli he had deprived himself in 
lending the plane to his friend. 

It was impossible for any one acquainted with 
the transaction to discover the slightest trace in it 
of oppression or injustice. 

The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the 
year, the plane came into James's possession, and 
he lent it again; recovered it, and lent it a third 
and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of 
his son, who still lends it. Poor plane ! how many 
times has it changed, sometimes its blade, some- 
times its handle. It is no longer the same plane, 
but it has always the same value, at least for 
James's posterity. Workmen ; let us examine 
into these little stories. . 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 35 

I maintain, first of all, that tlie sack of corn and 
\hQ plane are here the type, tlie model, a faithful 
representation, the symbol of all capital ; as the 
half bushel of corn and the plank are the type, the 
model, the representation, the symbol of all in- 
terest. This granted, the following are, it seems 
to me, a series of consequences, the justice of 
which it is impossible to dispute. 

1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower 
to the lender is a natural, equitable, lawful remu- 
neration, the just price of a real service, we may 
conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature 
of capital when loaned or used to produce interest. 
When this capital, as in the foregoing examples, 
takes the form of an instrument of Icibor^ it is 
clear enou2:h that it ouo-ht to brino; an ad van- 
tage to its possessor, to him who has devoted to it 
his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, 
why should behave made it ? I^o necessity of life 
can be immediatelj^ satisfied with instruments of 
labor ; no one eats planes or drinks saws, except, 
indeed, he be a conjuror. If a man determines to 
spend his time in the production of such things, 
he must have been led to it by the consideration 
of the increased power which these instruments 
give to him; of the time which they save him ; 
of the perfection and rapidity which they give to 
his labor ; in a word, of the advantages which 



36 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

tliey procure for Iiim. Xow, these advantages, 
whicli have been obtained by labor, by the sac- 
riiice of time which might have been used for 
other purposes, are we bound, as soon as they are 
ready to be enjoyed, to confer gratuitously upon 
another ? Would it be an advance in social 
order if the law decided thus, and citizens should 
pay officials for causing snch a law to be executed 
by force ? I venture to say that there is not one 
amongst you who would support it. It would be 
to legalize, to organize, to systematize injustice 
itself, for it would be proclaiming that there are 
men born to render, and others born to receive, 
gratuitous services. Grant, then, that interest is 
just, natural, and expedient. 

2d. A second consequence, not less remarka- 
ble than the former, and, if possible, still more 
conclusive, to which I call your attention, is 
this : — Interest is not injitrious to the horroicer. 
I mean to say, the obligation in which the bor- 
rower finds himself, to pay a remuneration for 
use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condi- 
tion. Observe, in fact, that James and William 
are perfectly free, as regards the transaction to 
which the plane gave occasion. The transaction 
cannot be accomplished without the consent of 
one as well as of the other. The worst which can 
happen is, that James may be too exacting ; and 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 37 

in this case, William, refusing the loan, remains 
as Le was before. By the fact of his agreeing to 
borrow, he proves that he considers it an advan- 
tage to himself; he proves, that after every cal- 
culation, whatever may be the remnn oration or 
interest required of him, he still finds it more 
profitable to borrow than not to borrow. He 
only determines to do so because he has com- 
pared the inconveniences with the advantages. 
He has calculated that the day on which he re- 
turns the plane, accompanied by the remunera- 
tion agreed upon, he w^ill have effected more 
work, with the same labor, thanks to this tool. 
A profit will remain to him, otherwise he would 
not have borrowed. The two services of which 
we are speaking are exchanged according to the 
law wdiich governs all exchanges, the law of sup- 
ply and demand. The claims of James have a 
natural and impassable limit. This is the point 
in which the remuneration demanded by him 
would absorb all the advantage which "William 
might find in making use of a plane. In this 
case, the borrowing would not take place. Wil- 
liam would be bound either to make a plane for 
himself, or do without one, which would leave 
him in his original condition. He borrows, be- 
cause he gains by borrowing. I know very well 
what will be told me. You will say, William may 



38 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

be deceived, or, perhaps, he may be goyerned by 
necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law. 

It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they 
belong to the infirmity of our nature, and to 
argue from this against the transaction in ques- 
tion, is objecting the possibility of loss in all im- 
aginable transactions, in every human act. Error 
is an accidental fact, which is incessantly reme- 
died by experience. In short, everybody must 
guard against it. As far as those hard necessi- 
ties are concerned, which force persons to borrow 
nnder onerous conditions, it is clear that these 
necessities existed previously to the borrowing. If 
William is in a situation in which he cannot possi- 
bly do without a plane, and must borrow one at any 
price, does this situation result from James hay- 
ing taken the trouble to make the tool ? Does it 
not exist independently of this circumstance ? 
However harsh, however severe James may be, 
he will never render the supposed condition of 
William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the 
leader will be to blame if he demands more than 
is just; but, in an economical point of view, the 
loan itself can never be considered responsible 
for previous necessities, which it has not created, 
and which it relieves to a certain extent. 

But this proves something to which I shall re- 
turn. It is evidentl}^ for the interest of William, 



CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 39 

representing here tlie borrowers, tliat there shall 
be many Jameses and planes, or, in other words, 
lenders and capitals. It is very evident, that if 
William can say to James, '' Y^onr demands are 
exorbitant ; there is no lack of planes in the 
world ; " he will be in a better situation than if 
James's plane was the only one he could borrow. 
Assuredly, there is no maxim more true than this 
■ — service for service. But let us not forget that 
no service has a fixed and absolute value, com- 
pared with others. The contracting parties are 
free. Each carries his requisitions to the farthest 
possible point, and the most favorable circum- 
stance for these requisitions is the absence of 
rivalship. Hence it follows that if there is a 
class of men more interested than any otlier in the 
creation, multiplication, and abundance of capitals, 
it is mainly that of the borrowers. Now, since 
capitals can only be formed and increased by the 
Btimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let this 
class understand the injury they are inflicting on 
themselves when they deny the lawlessness of in- 
terest, when they proclaim that credit should be 
gratuitous, when they declaim against tlie pre- 
tended tyranny of capital, when they discourage 
saving, thus forcing capital to become scarce, and 
consequently interest to rise. 

3d. The anecdote I have just related enables 



40 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

yon to explain this apparently singular pheno- 
menon, which is termed the duration or perpe- 
tuity of interest. Since, in lending his plane, 
James has been able, very lawfully, to make it a 
condition tliat it should he returned to him, at the 
end of a year, in the same state in which it was 
when he lent it, is it not evident that he may, at 
the expiration of the term, lend it again on the 
same conditions ? If he resolves upon the latter 
plan, the plane will return to him at the end of 
every year, and that without end. James will 
then be in a condition to lend without end; that 
is, he may derive from it a perpetual interest. It 
will be said, that the plane will be worn out. 
That is true ; but it will be worn out by the hand 
and for the profit of the borrower. The latter 
has taken this gradual wear into account, and 
taken upon himself, as he ought, the consequences. 
He has reckoned that he shall derive from this 
tool an advantage Avhich will allow him to restore 
it in its original condition, after having realized 
a profit from it. As long as James does not use 
this capital himself, or for his own advantage — as 
lono^ as he renounces the advantas^es which allow 
it to be restored to its orig^inal condition — he will 
have an incontestable right to have it restored, 
and that independently of interest. 

Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 41 

shown, James, far from doing any harm to Wil- 
liam, has done him a service in lending him his 
plane for a year ; for the same reason, he will do 
no harm to a second, a third, a fourth borrower, 
in the subsequent periods. Hence you may un- 
derstand that the interest of a capital is as natural, 
as lawful, as useful, in the thousandth year, as in 
the first. We may go still farther. It may hap- 
pen that James lends more than a single plane. 
It is possible, that by means of working, of sav- 
ing, of privations, of order, of activity, he may 
come to be able to lend a multitude of planes and 
saws; that is to say, to do a multitude of services. 
I insist upon this point, — ^that if the first loan has 
been a social good, it will be the same with all 
the others ; for they are all similar, and based 
upon the same principle. It may happen, then, 
that the amount of all the remunerations received 
by our honest operative, in exchange for services 
rendered by him, may sufiice to maintain him. 
In this case, there will be a man in the world 
who has a right to liv^e without working. I do 
not say that he would be doing right to give him- 
self up to idleness — but I say, that he has a right 
to do so ; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's 
expense, but quite the contrary. If society at all 
understands the nature of things, it will acknowl- 
edge that this man subsists on services wdiich he 



42 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

receives certainly (as we all do), but which he 
receives lawfully in exchange for other services, 
which he himself has rendered, that he continues 
to render, and which are real services, inasmuch 
as they are freely and voluntarily accepted. 

And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest 
harmonies in the social word. I allude to leisure : 
not that leisure that the warlike and tyrannical 
classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of 
the workers, but that leisure which is the lawful 
and innocent fruit of past activity and economy. 
In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall 
shock many received ideas. But see ! Is not 
leisure an essential spring in the social machine ? 
Without it the world would never have had a 
Newton, a Pascal, a Fenelon ; mankind would 
have been ignorant of all arts, sciences, and of 
those wonderful inventions prepared originally by 
investigations of mere curiosity ; thought would 
have been inert — man w^ould have made no prog- 
ress.* On the other hand, if leisure could only be 

* " Of all tlie results wliicli are produced among a people 
\>j tlieir climate, food, and soil, tlie accumulation of wealth 
(capital) is tlie earliest, and in many respects the most im- 
portant. For although the progress of knowledge eventu- 
ally accelerates the increase of wealth, it is nevertheless cer- 
tain that, in the first formation of society, the wealth must 
accumulate before tlie knowledge can begin. As long as 
everv man is engaged in collecting the materials necessary 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 43 

explained by plunder and ojDpression — if it were 
a benefit wliicli conld only be enjoyed unjustly, 
and. at the expense of others, there would be no 
middle path between these two evils; either man- 
kind would be reduced to the necessity of stag- 
nating in a vegetable and stationary life, in eternal 
ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its ma- 
chine — or else it would have to acquire these 
wheels at the price of inevitable injustice, and 
would necessarily present the sad spectacle, in one 
form or other, of the ancient classification of hu- 
man beings into masters and slaves. I defy any 
one to show me, in this case, any other alterna- 
tive. We should be compelled to contemplate 
the. Divine plan wdiich governs society, with, the 
regret of thinking that it presents a deplorable 
chasm. The stimulus of progress would be for- 
gotten, or, which is worse, this stimulus would be 
no other than injustice itself. But no ! God has 
not left such a chasm in His work of love. We 
must take care not to disres-ard His wisdom and 
power ; for those whose imperfect meditations 

for liis own subsistence, there will be neither leisure nor 
taste for higher pursuits. But if the produce is greater than 
consumption, an overplus arises, by means of which men 
can use what they did not produce, and are thus enabled to 
devote themselves to subjects for which at an earlier period 
the pressure of their daily wants would have left them no 
time." — Buckle's History oj Civilization. 



4:4: CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

cannot explain the lawfulness of leisnre, are very 
much like the astronomer who said, at a certain 
point in the heavens there ouglit to exist a planet 
which will be at last discovered, for without it the 
celestial world is not harmony, but discord. 

Therefore, I say that, if well understood, tlie 
history of my humble plane, although very mod- 
est, is sufficient to raise us to tlie contemplation 
of one of the most consoling, but least understood 
of the social harmonies. 

It is not true that we must choose between the 
denial or the unlawfulness of leisure ; thanks to 
rent and its natural duration, leisure may arise 
from labor and saving. It is a pleasing prospect, 
which every one may have in view ; a noble re- 
compense, to which each may aspire. It makes 
its appearance in the w^orld ; it distributes itself 
proportion ably to the exercise of certain virtues ; 
it opens all the avenues to intelligence ; it enno- 
bles, it raises the morals ; it spiritualizes the soul 
of humanity, not only without laying any weight 
on those of our brethren whose lot in life makes 
severe labor necessary, but it relieves them grad- 
ually from the heaviest and most repugnant part 
of this labor. It is enough that capitals should 
be formed, accumulated, multiplied; should bo 
lent on conditions less and less burdensome ; that 
they should descend, penetrate into every social 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 45 

circle, and that by an admirable progression, after 
having liberated the lenders from onerous toil, 
thev should brins; a similar liberation to the bor- 
rowers themselves. For that end, the laws and 
customs ought all to be favorable to economy, the 
source of capital. It is enough to say, that the 
first of all these conditions is, not to alarm, to 
attack, to deny that which is the stimulus of sav- 
ing and the reason of its existence — interest. 

As long as we see nothing passing from hand 
to hand, in the operations of loan, hvit provisions^ 
wiaterials, instruments^ things indispensable to 
the productiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus 
far exhibited will not find many opponents. Who 
knows, even, that I may not be reproached for 
having made a great effort to burst what may be 
said to be an open door. But as soon as money 
makes its appearance as the subject of the trans- 
action (and it is this which appears almost always), 
immediately a crowd of objections are raised. 
Money, it will be said, will not reproduce itself, 
like your sack of corn 'j it does not assist labor, 
like your plane / it does not afford an immediate 
satisfaction, like your house. It is incapable, by 
its nature, of producing interest, of multiplying 
itself, and the remuneration it demands is a posi- 
tive extortion. 

Who cannot see the sophistry of this \ Who 



46 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

does not see that money is only an instrumentality 
wliicli men use to represent other values^ or real 
objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitat- 
ing their exchanges of commodities or services ? In 
the midst of social complications, the man who is 
in a condition to lend scarcely ever has the exact 
thing which the borrower wants. James, it is true, 
has a plane ; but, perhaps, William wants a saw. 
They cannot negotiate ; the transaction favorable 
to both cannot take place, and then what happens ? 
It happens that James lirst exchanges his plane 
for mone}^ ; he lends the money to William, and 
William exchanges the money for a saw. The 
transaction is no longer a simple one ; it is re- 
solved into two transactions, as I explained above 
in speaking of exchange. But, for all that, it has 
not changed its nature ; it still contains all the 
elements of a direct loan. James has parted with a 
tool which was useful to him ; William has at the 
same time received an instrument which facilitates 
his work and increases his profits ; there is still 
a service rendered by the lender, which entities 
him to receive an equivalent service from the bor- 
rower ; and this just balance is not the less estab- 
lished by free mutual bargaining. The obvious 
natural oblioration to restore at the end of the term 
the entire value of what was borrowed still consti- 
tutes the principle of the rightfulness of interest. 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 47 

At tlie end of a year, says M. Thore, will you 
find an additional dollar in a bag of a hundred 
dollars ? 

'No, certainly if tlie borrower puts the bag of 
one hundred dollars on the shelf. In such a 
case, neither the plane nor the sack of corn would 
reproduce themselves. Eut it is not for the sake 
of leaving the money in the bag, nor the plane on 
the shelf, that they are borrowed. The plane is 
borrowed to be used, or the money to procure a 
plane. And if it is clearly proved that this tool 
enables the borrower to obtain profits which he 
could not have made w^ithout it ; if it is proved 
that the lender has given up the opportunity of 
creating for himself this excess of profits, we 
may understand how the stipulation of a part 
of this excess of profits in favor of the lender, 
is equitable and lawful. 

Ignorance of the true part which money plays 
in human transactions, is the source of the most 
fatal errors. From what we may infer from 
the writings of M. Proudhon, that which has 
led him to think that gratuitous credit was a 
logical and definite consequence of social pro- 
gress, is the observation of the phenomenon 
that interest seems to decrease almost in direct 
proportion to the progress of civilization. In bar- 
barous times it is, in fact, cent, per cent., and 



48 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

more. Then it descends to eiglitj, sixty, fifty, 
forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per 
cent. In Holland, it has even been as L)W as two 
per cent. Hence it is conchided, that ''in propor- 
tion as society comes to perfection, the rate of in- 
terest will diminish and finally run down to zero, or 
nothing, by the time civilization is complete. In 
other words, that which characterizes social per- 
fection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, 
therefore, we shall liave abolished interest, we 
shall have reached the last step of progress." 
This is mere sophistry, and as such false arguing 
may contribute to render popular the unjnst, dan- 
gerous, and destructive dogma that credit should 
be gratuitous, by representing it as coincident with 
social perfection, with the reader's permission I 
will examine in a few words this new view of the 
question. 

WHAT EEGULATBS INTEREST? 

"What is interest f It is the service rendered, 
after a free bargain, by the borrower to the lender, 
in remuneration for the service he has received 
by or from the loan. By what law is the rate of 
these remunerative services established ? By the 
general law which regulates the equivalent of all 
services; that is, by the law of supply and demand. 

The more easily a thing is pi'ocured, the smaller 



CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 49 

is the service rendered by yielding it or lending it. 
The man who gives me a glass of water among 
the springs of the mountains does not render me 
so great a service as he who allows me one in 
the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, 
sacks of corn, or houses, in a country, the use 
of them is obtained, other things being equal, on 
more favourable conditions than if they were few, 
for the simple reason that the lender renders in 
this case a smaller relative service. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the more 
abundant capital is, the lower is the interest. 

Is this saying that it will ever reach zero ? 
ISTo ; because, I repeat it, the principle of a remu- 
neration is in the loan. To sa}^ that interest will 
be annihilated, is to say that there will never be 
any motive for saving, for denying ourselves, in 
order to form new capitals, nor even to preserve 
the old ones. In this case, the waste would im- 
mediately create a void, and interest would di- 
rectly reappear. 

In that, tlie nature of the services of which we 
are speaking does not difl'er from any other. 
Thanks to industrial progress, a pair of stockings, 
which used to be w^orth six shillings, has suc- 
cessively been worth only four, three, and two. 
ISTo one can say to what point this value will de- 
scQ^id ; but we can affirm that it will never reach 
3 



50 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

zero, unless the stockings finish by producing 
themselves spontaneously. Why ? Because the 
principle of remuneration is in labor; because 
he who works for another renders a service, and 
ought to receive a service. If no one paid for 
stockings they would cease to be made ; and? 
with the scarcity, the 23rice would not fail to re- 
appear. 

The sophism which I am now combating has 
its root in the infinite divisibility which belongs 
to value, as it does to matter. 

It may appear at first paradoxical, but it is well 
known to all mathematicians, that, through all 
eternity, fractions may be taken from a weight 
without the w^eight ever being annihilated. It is 
sufficient that each successive fraction be less than 
the preceding one, in a determined and regular 
proportion. 

There are countries where people apply them- 
selves to increasing the size of horses, or diminish- 
ing in sheep the size of the head. It is impossible 
to say precisely to what point they will arrive in 
this. No one can say that he has seen the largest 
horse or the smallest sheep's head that will ever 
appear in the world. But he may safely say that 
the size of horses will never attain to infinit}^, nor 
the heads of sheep be reduced to nothing. 

In the same way, no one can say to what point 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 51 

the price of stockings nor the interest of capiti^il 
will come down ; but we may safely afiirm, when 
we know the nature of things, that neither the one 
nor the other will ever arrive at zero, for labor 
and capital can no more live without recompense 
than a sheep without a head. 

The aro^uments of Mr. Proudhon reduce them- 
selves, then, to this : — Since the most skillful agri- 
culturists are those who have reduced the heads 
of sheep to the smallest size, we shall have ar- 
rived at the highest agricultural perfection when 
sheep have no longer any heads. Therefore, in 
order to realize the perfection, let ns behead 
them. 

I have now done with this wearisome discussion. 
Why is it that the breath of false doctrine has 
made it needful to examine into the innate na- 
ture of interest ? I must not leave off without 
remarking upon a beautiful moral which may be 
drawn from this law : — " The reduction in the 
rate of interest is proportional to the abundance 
of capital." This law being granted, if there is a 
class of men to whom it is more important than 
to any other that stocks of capital should accumu- 
late, multiply, abound, and superabcnnd, it is cer- 
tainly the class which borrows capital directly or 
indirectly ; it is those men who operate npon ma- 
terials^ who gain assistance by instruments^ who 



62 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

live upon accumulations produced and saved by 
other men. 

Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a popu- 
lation of a thousand inhabitants, destitute of all 
capital as thus defined. It will assuredly perish by 
the pangs of hunger. Let us s appose a case hardly 
less cruel. Let us suppose that ten of these sav- 
ages (for persons without capital are savages) are 
provided with instruments and provisions sufii- 
cient to work and to live themselves until harvest 
time, as well as to remunerate the services of 
eighty laborers. The inevitable result will be the 
death of nine hundred human beings. It is clear, 
then, that since 990 men, urged by want, w^ill 
crowd upon the supports whicli w^ould only main- 
tain a hundred, the ten capitalists will be masters 
of the market. They will obtain labor on the 
hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auc- 
tion or the highest bidder. And observe this, — 
if these capitalists entertain such pious sentiments 
as would induce them to impose personal priva- 
tions on themselves, in order to diminish the suf- 
ferings of some of their brethren, this generosity'', 
wdiicli attaches to morality, will be as noble in its 
principle as useful in its effects. But, if duped 
by that false philosophy which persons wish so 
inconsiderately to mingle with economic laws, they 
take to remunerating labor in excess of what it is 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 5S 

worth, and in excess of wliat tliey are able to pay, 
far from doing good, tliey will do harm. They will 
give double wages, it may be. But then, forty-five 
men will be better provided for, whilst forty-tive 
others from the diminution in the supply of 
capital, will augment the number of those who 
are sinking into the grave. Upon this supposi- 
tion, it is not the deprivation of wages which 
primarily works the mischief, but the scarcity of 
capital. Low wages are not the cause, but the 
effect of the evil. I niay add, that they are to a 
certain extent the remedy. It acts in this way : 
it distributes the burden of suffering as much as 
it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quan- 
tity of available sustenance permits. 

Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, 
there should be a hundred, two hundred, five 
hundred — is it not evident that the condition of 
the whole population, and, above all, that of the 
mass of the people will be more and more im- 
proved? Is it not evident that, apart from every 
consideration of generosity, they would obtain 
more work and better pay for it? — that they 
themselves will be in a better condition to accu- 
mulate capital, without being able to fix the limits 
to this ever-increasing facility of realizing equal- 
ity and well-being ? Would it not be madness 
in them to admit and act upon the truth of such 



54 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

doctrines as Proudhon and John Kiiskin teach, 
and to act in a way which would reduce the 
source of wages, and paralyze the activity and 
stimulus of saving? Let them learn this lesson, 
then. Accumulations of capital are good for those 
who possess them : who denies it I But they are 
also useful to those who have not yet been able to 
form them ; and it is important to those who have 
them not that others should have them. 

Yes, if the laboring classes knew their true in- 
terests, they would seek to know with the greatest 
earnestness what circumstances are, and what are 
not favorable to saving, in order to encourage 
the former and to discourao^e the latter. Thev 
w^ould sympathize with every measure which 
tends to the rapid accumulation of capital. They 
would be enthusiastic promoters of peace, liberty, 
order, security, the union of classes and peoples, 
economy, moderation in public expenses, simplic- 
ity in the machinery of government; for it is 
under the sway of all these circumstances that 
saving does its work, brings plenty within the 
reach of the masses, invites those persons to be- 
come the owners of capital who were formerly 
under the necessity of borrowing upon hard con- 
ditions. They would repel with energy the war- 
like spirit, which diverts from its true course so 
large a part of human labor; the monopolizing 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 55 

spirit, which deranges the equitable distribution 
of riches, in the way by which liberty alone can 
realize it; the multitude of public services 
which attack our purses only to check our liberty ; 
and, in short, those subversive, hateful, thought- 
less doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent its 
formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its 
price, to the especial disadvantage of the workers, 
who bring it into existence. 

Take for example the revolution which over- 
threw the government of France, and disturbed 
society in February, 1848, is it not a hard lesson ? 
Is it not evident that the insecurity it has thrown 
into the world of business on the one hand ; and, 
on the other, the advancement of the fatal the- 
ories to which I have alluded, and which, from 
the clubs, have almost penetrated into the re- 
gions of the legislature, have everywhere raised 
the rate of interest? Is it not evident that from 
that time the laboring^ classes of France have 
found greater difficulty in procuring those mate- 
rials, instruments, and provisions, without which 
labor is impossible ? Is it not tliat which has 
caused stagnation of business ; and does not par- 
alysis of industry in turn lower wages ? Thus 
there is a deficiency of labor to those who need 
to labor, from the same cause which loads the ob- 
jects they consume with an increase of price, in 



56 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

consequence of the rise of interest. Higli inter- 
est and low wages, signif}^ in other words that 
the same article preserves its price, but that 
the remuneration of the capitalist has invaded, 
without profiting himself, that of the work- 
man. 

A friend of mine, commissioned to make in- 
quiry into Parisian industry, has assured me that 
the manufecturers have revealed to him a very 
striking fact, which proves, better than any 
reasoning can, how much insecurity and uncer- 
tainty injure the formation of capitaL It was re- 
marked that during the most distressing period 
of this revolution the popular expenses of ex- 
penditures for personal gratification did not 
diminish. The small theatres, the public-houses, 
and tobacco depots, were as much frequented as 
in prosperous times. On inquiry, the operatives 
themselves explained this phenomenon as follows : 
— " What is the use of economizing ? Who 
knows what will happen to us ? Who knows 
that interest will not be abolished ? Who knows 
but that the State will become a universal and 
gratuitous lender, and that it will annihilate all 
the fruits which we might expect from our 
savings ? " Well ! I say, that if such ideas could 
prevail during two single years, it would be 
enough to turn our beautiful France into a Tur- 



( 



CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 57 

key — misery would become general and endemic, 
and, most assuredly, tlie poor would be the first 
upon whom it would fall. 

Laborino- men ! tliev talk to you a o:reat deal 
upon the artificial organization of labor ; — do you 
know why they do so ? Because they are igno- 
rant of the lav/s of its natural organization ; that 
is, of the wonderful organization w^iicli results 
from liberty. You are told that liberty gives 
rise to what is called the radical antagonism of 
classes; that it creates, and makes to clash, two 
opposite interests — that of the capitalists and that 
of the laborers. But we ought to begin by prov- 
ing that the antagonism exists by a law of nature ; 
and afterwards it would remain to be shown 
how far the arrangements for restriction are 
superior to those of liberty, for between liberty 
and restriction I see no middle path. Again, it 
would remain to be proved that restriction would 
always operate to your advantage, and to the pre- 
judice of the rich. But, no ; this radical antagon- 
ism, this natural opposition of interests, does not 
exist. It is only an evil dream of perverted and 
intoxicated imaginations. I^o ; a plan so defec- 
tive has not proceeded from the Divine Mind. 
To affirm it, we must begin by denying the exist- 
ence of God. And see how, by means of social 
laws, and becanse men exchange amongst them- 



58 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 

selves their labors and their productions, a harmo- 
nious tie attaches the difierent classes of society 
one to the other ! There are the landowners ; what 
is their interest? That the soil be fertile, and the 
sun beneficent : and what is tlie result ? That 
wheat abounds, that it falls in price, and the ad- 
vantage turns to the profit of those who have had 
no patrimony. There are the manufacturers — what 
is their constant thought ? To perfect their labor, 
to increase the power of their machines, to pro- 
cure for themselves, upon the best terms, the raw 
material. And to what does all this tend? To 
the abundance and the low price of produce ; that 
is, all the efforts of the manufacturers, and 
without their suspecting it, result in a profit to 
the public consumer, of wdiich each of you is one. 
It is the same with every profession. Now, the 
capitalists are not exempt from this law\ They 
are very busy making schemes, economizing, and 
turning them to their advantage. This is all very 
w^ell ; but the more they succeed, the more do 
they promote the abundance of capital, and, as a 
necessary consequence, the reduction of interest. 
J^ow, who is it that profits by the reduction of in- 
terest ? Is it not the borrower first, and finally, 
the consumers of the things which the capital 
.contributes to produce ? 

It is therefore certain tliat the final result of 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 69 

the efforts of each class is the common good of 
all. 

Yoii are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. 
I do not deny that each one endeavors to draw 
the greatest possible advantage from his situation ; 
bnt, in this sense, he realizes only that which is 
possible. ]^ow, it is never more possible for 
capitalists to tyrannize over labor, than when capi- 
tal is scarce ; for then it is they who make the law 
— it is they who regulate the rate of sale. I^ever is 
this tyranny more impossible to them, than when 
capital and capitalists are abundant; for, in that 
case, it is labor which has the command. [Where 
there is one to sell and two to buy, the seller fixes 
the price ; where there are two to sell and one to 
buy, the buyer always has the advantage. — Editor.'] 

Away, then, with the jealousies of classes, ill- 
will, unfounded hatreds, unjust suspicions. These 
depraved passions injure those who nourish them 
in their heart. This is no declamatory morality; 
it is a chain of causes and effects, which is capa- 
ble of being rigorously, mathematically demon- 
strated. It is not the less sublime in that it 
satisfies the intellect as well as the feelings. 

I shall sum up this whole dissertation with 
these words : — Workmen, laborers, destitute and 
suffering classes, will you improve your condition ? 
You will not succeed by strife, insurrection, 



60 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

hatred, and eiToi\ But there are three things 
which always result in benefit and blessing to 
every community and to every individual which 
help to compose it ; — and these things are — peace^ 
liberty, and security. 



The foregoing essay was written by M. Bastiat, 
in France, for the instruction of his countrymen, 
shortly after the revolution of 1848, when the 
opinions of Proudhon and other Socialist leaders 
seemed to be acquiring a strong hold among the 
laboring classes of his country. Proudhon, and most 
of his Socialist friends have passed away, but their 
ideas nevertheless continue to find favor with not 
a few people, even in the United States. It may, 
therefore, be of interest to the American reader, 
to supplement this essay of M. Bastiat, with the 
following results of some investigations relative 
to accumulation and distribution of wealth in 
the United States, which w^ere presented to the 
American Social Science Association, at their 
annual meeting in Detroit, Michigan, in 1875 : 

" It would seem clear, that all ideas about the 
compulsory distribution of wealth or capital, and 
about diminishing the incentives for the accumu- 
lation of capital, are wholly antagonistic in the 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 61 

first place, to the idea of personal freedom, unless 
we mean to restrict the meaning of freedom sim- 
ply to the possession and control of one's own 
person irrespective of property, which would 
involve little more than the rio^ht to free locomo- 
tion ; and, second, that they tend to impair the 
growth of, if not wholly to destroy, civilization 
itself. For if liberty is not afforded to all, rich 
and poor, high and low, to keep, and to use in 
whatever way they may see fit, that which the^^ 
lawfully acquire, subject only to the necessary 
social restraint of working no positive ill to one's 
neighbor, — then the desire to acquire and accu- 
mulate property will be taken away ; and capital, 
meaning thereby not merely monej^, which con- 
stitutes but a very small part of the capital of any 
community, but all those things which are the 
accumulated results of labor, foresight, and econ- 
omy, — the machinery by which abundance is in- 
creased, toil lightened, and comfort gained, — will, 
instead of increasing, rapidly diminish. 

'* And, in order to comprehend the full mean- 
ing of this statement, attention is asked to tlie 
following illustration of the extreme slowness 
with which tiiat which we call capital accumu- 
lates, even under the most favorable circumstances. 

" By the census of 18Y0, the aggregate wealth 
of the United States, making all due allowances - 



62 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

for duplication in valuation, was probabl}^ not in 
excess of twenty-five thousand inillions. But vast 
as the sum is, and difficult as it certainly is for the 
mind to form any adequate conception of it in 
the aggregate, it is nevertheless most interesting 
to inquire what it is, that measured by human 
effort, it represents. And the answer is, that it 
represents, ^V^?^, a value, supposing the whole sum 
to be apportioned equally among an assumed pop- 
ulation of forty millions, of about six hundred 
and twenty dollars to each individual, — not a 
large amount, if one was to depend on its in- 
terest at six per cent, as a means of support ; and, 
second, it represents the surplus result of all the 
labor, skill, and thought exerted, and all the capi- 
tal earned and saved, or brought into the country, 
for the last two hundred and fifty years, or ever 
since the country became practically the abode of 
civilized men. 

" But, with capital, or the instrumentalities for 
creating abundance, increasing thus slowly, it cer- 
tainly stands to reason that w^e needs be exceed- 
ingly careful, lest, by doing anything to impair 
its security, we impair also its rate of increase ; 
and we accordingly find, as we should naturally 
expect from the comparatively high education of 
our people, that the idea of any direct interfer- 
ence with the rights of property meets with but 



CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 63 

little favor upon tliis side of the Atlantic. But 
at the same time we cannot deny that many of 
the most intelligent of the men and women inter- 
ested in the various labor-reform movements iii 
this country, taking as the basis of their reason- 
in sr the lar2:e nominal ao^o:reo:ate of the national 
wealth, and the large advance which has recently 
been made in the power of production, and con- 
sidering them in the abstract, irrespectiv^e of time 
or distribution, have nevertheless adopted the 
idea, — vao^ue and shadow v thouo-li it mav be, — 
that the amount of the present annual product of 
labor and capital is sufficient for all ;' and that all 
it is necessary to do to insure comfort and abun- 
dance to the masses, is for the State somehow to 
intervene, — either by fixing the hours of labor, 
or the rates of compensation for service, or the 
use of capital, — and compel its more equitable 
distribution. 

" Kow, that a more equitable distribution of the 
results of production is desirable, and that such a 
distribution does not at present take place to the 
extent that it might witliout impairing the exer- 
cise of individual freedom, must be admitted ; 
but, before undertaking to make laws on the 
subject, is it not of importance to first find out 
how much we have really got to divide ? 

*' Let us see. 



6i . CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 

" Stated in money, the maximum value of the 
annual product of the United States is not in 
excess of $5,000,000,000 (probably less) ; of which 
the value of the annual product of all our agricul- 
ture, — our cotton and our corn, our beef and our 
pork, our hay, our wheat, and all our other fruits, 
— is returned by the last census with undoubted 
approximative accuracy, at less than one-half that 
sum ; or in round numbers at $2,400,000,000. 

"But while this sum of estimated yearly in- 
come, like the figures which report the aggregate 
of our national wealth, is so vast as to be almost 
beyond the powder of mental conception, there is 
yet one thing about it which is certain, and can 
be readily comprehended ; and that is, that of this 
whole product, wdiether we measure it in money 
or in any other way, fully nine-tenths, and proba- 
bly a larger proportion, must be immediately con- 
sumed, in order that we may simply live, and 
make good the loss and waste of capital previously 
accumulated ; leaving not more than one-tenth to 
be applied in the form of accumulation for effect- 
ing a future increased production and develop- 
ment. 

" Or to state the case differently, and at the. 
eame time illustrate how small, even under the 
most favorable circumstances, can be the annual 
surplus of • production over consumption, it is 



CAPITAL AND INTEEEST, 65 

only necessary to compare the largest estimate 
of the value of our annual product, with our 
laro^est estimate of the ao:o:reo:ate national wealth, 
to see, that practically, after two hundred and 
fifty years of toiling an'd saving, we have only 
managed as a nation to get about three and a 
half years ahead, in the way of subsistence ; and 
that now if, as a whole people, we should stop 
working and producing, and repairing waste and 
deterioration, and devote ourselves exclusively to 
amusement and idleness, living on the accumu- 
lation of our former labors or the labor of our 
fathers, four years would be more than sufficient 
to starve three-fourths of us out of existence, and 
reduce the other one-fourth to the condition of 
semi-barbarism ; a result, on the wliole, which it 
is well to think of in connection with the pro- 
mulgation of certain new theories, that tlie best 
way of increasing abundance, and promoting com- 
fort and happiness, is by decreasing the aggregate 
and opportunities of production. 

*^ In fact, there are few things more transitory 
and perishable than that which we call wealth ; 
and, a^ specifically embodied in the ordinary 
forms we see about us, its duration is not, on the 
average, in excess of the life of a generation. 

'" The railroad system of the country is esti- 
mated to have cost more than two thousand mil- 



66 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

lions of dollars ; but if left to itself, without re- 
newals or repairs, its value as property in ten 
years would entirely vanish ; and so also with 
our ships, our machinery, our tools and imple- 
ments, and even our land when cultivated without 
renovation. For it is to be remembered, that 
those same forces of nature which we have mas- 
tered, and made subservient for the work of pro- 
duction, are also our greatest natural enemies, 
and if left to themselves will tear down and de- 
stroy much more rapidly than under guidance 
they will aggregate and build up. A single night 
was sufficient in Chicago to utterly destroy what 
was equivalent to one quarter of the whole sur- 
plus product which during the preceding year the 
nation had accumulated ; and of all the material 
wealth of the great and rich nations of antiquity, 
— of Eg3^ptian, Assyrian, Tyrian, and Koman 
civilization, — nothing wdiatever has come down 
to us, except, singularly enough, those things 
which, like their tombs and public monuments, 
never were possessed of a money valuation. 

" But the inferences which we are warranted 
in drawing from these facts and figures are by no 
means exhausted. Supposing the value of our 
annual product — five thousand millions — to be 
equally divided among our present population of 
forty millions: then the average income of each 



CAPITAL AND INTEKEST* 67 

individual would be one hundred and twenty-five 
dollars per annum; out of which food, clotliiug, 
fuel, shelter, education, traveling expenses, and 
means of enjoyment, are to be provided, all taxes 
paid, all waste, loss, and depreciation made good, 
and any surplus available as new capital added to 
former accumulations. 

" Now, if at first thought this deduction of the 
average individual income of our people seems 
small, it should be remembered that it is based on 
an estimate of annual national product greater 
both in the aggregate, and in proportion to num- 
bers, than is enjoyed by any other nation, our 
compeers in wealth and civilization ; and further, 
that this one hundred and twenty-five dollars is 
not the sum which all actually receive as income, 
but the average sum which each would receive, 
were the whole annual product divided equally. 
But as a practical matter we know that the annual 
product is not divided equally ; and, furthermore, 
that, as long as men are born with different nat- 
ural capacities, it never will be so divided. Some 
will receive, and do receive, as their share of the 
annual product, the annual average we have stated, 
multiplied by hundreds or even thousands ; which 
of course necessitates that very many others shall 
receive proportionally less. And how much less, 
is indicated by recent investigations which show, 



GS CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

that for the whole country the average earnings 
of laborers and unskilled workmen is not in ex- 
cess of four hundred dollars per annum, — the 
maximum amount beino- received in J^ew Eno^- 
land, and the minimum in the Southern, or former 
slaveholding States ; which sum, assuming that 
the families of ail these men consist of four (the 
census of 1SY5 says live), two adults and two 
children, would give one hundred dollars as the 
average amount which each individual of the 
class referred to produces, and also the amount 
to which each such individual must be restricted 
in consumption ; for it is clear, that no man can 
consume more than he or his capital produces, 
unless he can in some way obtain the product of 
some other man's labor without giving him an 
equivalent for it. 

" We are thus led to the conclusion, that not- 
withstanding the wonderful extent to which we 
have been enabled to use and control tlie forces 
of nature for the purpose of increasing the power 
of production, the time has not yet come, when 
society in the United States can command such a 
degree of absolute abundance as to justify and 
warrant any class or individual, rich or poor, and 
least of all those who depend upon the product of 
each day's labor to meet each day's needs, in do- 
ing anything which can in any way tend to dimin- 



CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 69 

isli abundance ; and furthermore, that the agency 
of law, even if invoked to the fullest extent in 
compelling distribution, must be exceedingly 
limited in its operations. 

" Let the working man of the United States 
therefore, in every vocation, demand and strive, 
if he will, for the largest possible share of the 
joint products of labor and capital ; for it is the 
natural right of eYerj one to seek to obtain the 
largest price for that which he has to sell. But 
if in so doing he restricts production, and so 
diminishes abundance, he does it at his peril; 
for, by a law far above any legislative control or 
influence, whatever increases scarcity not only 
increases the necessity, but diminishes the rewards 
of labor. 

" Street processions, marching after flags and 
patriotic mottoes, even if held every day in the 
week, will never change the conditions which 
govern production and compensation. ' Idleness 
produces nothing but weeds and rust ; and such 
products are not marketable anywhere, though 
society often pays for them most dearly.' " 

— Editor. 



70 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 



THAT WHICH IS SEE:^r, 



AND 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEK 



In the department of economy, an act, a habit, 
an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an 
effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, 
the first only is immediate ; it manifests itself sim- 
ultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others 
unfold in succession — they are not seen : it is well 
for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and 
a bad economist this constitutes the whole differ- 
ence — the one takes account of the visible effect; 
the other takes account both of the effects w^hich 
are see7i and also of those w^hicli it is necessary to 
foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it 
sometimes happens that when the immediate con- 
sequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences 
are unfavorable, and the converse. Hence it 
follows that the bad economist pursues a small 
present good, which may be followed by a great 
evil to come, while the wise economist labors for a 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 71 

great good to come, at the risk of a small present 
evil. 

In fact, it is the same in the science of health, 
arts, and in that of morals. If often happens 
that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit 
is, the more bitter the consequences. Take, 
for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. 
When, therefore, a man, absorbed in the effect 
which is seen, has not yet learned to discern 
those which are not seen, he gives way to in- 
jurious habits, not only by inclination but by de- 
liberation. 

This explains, in a great degree, the grievous 
condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its 
cradle : then its actions are determined by their 
first consequences, the only ones which, in its first 
stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that 
it learns to take account of the others. It has to 
learn this lesson from two very different masters 
— experience and foresight. Experience teaches 
effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted 
with all the effects of an action, by causing us to 
feel them ; and we cannot fail to finish by know- 
ing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. 
For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, 
to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Fore- 
sight. For this purpose I propose to examine the 
consequences of certain economical phenomena, 



72 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

by placing in opposition to each other those 
wJiich are seen^ and those which are not seen. 

I.— THE BROKEN WINDOW. 

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good 
shopkeeper, James, when his careless son happened 
to break a pane of glass ? If yon have been 
present at such a scene, j^ou will most assuredly 
bear witness to the fact, that it is the custom of 
the spectators to offer the unfortunate owner this 
invariable consolation : "It is an ill wind that 
blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and 
what would become of the glaziers if panes of 
glass were never broken ? " 

JN^ow, this form of condolence contains an en- 
tire theory, which it will be well to show up in 
this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the 
same as that which, unhappily, regulates the 
greater part of our economical institutions. 

Suppose it cost a dollar to repair the damage, 
and you say that the accident brings a dollar to 
the glazier's trade — that it encourages that trade 
to the amount of a dollar — I grant it ; I have 
not a word to say against it; you reason justly. 
The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his 
dollar, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses 
the careless child. All this is that ichich is seen. 

But if, on the other hand, you come to the con- 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 73 

elusion, as is too often the ease, that it is a good 
thing to break windows, that it causes money to 
circulate, and that the encouragement of industry 
in general will be the result of it, you will oblige 
me to call out, " Stop there ! your theory is con- 
fined to that which is see7i / it takes no account 
of that which is not seenP 

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent 
a dollar upon one thing, he cannot spend it again 
upon some other thing.. It is not seen that if he 
had not had a window to replace, he would, 
perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added an- 
other book to his library. In short, he would have 
employed his dollar in some way which this ac- 
cident has prevented. 

Let us take a view of industry in general, as 
aifected by this circumstance. The window 
being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged 
to the amount of a dollar : this is that which is 
seen. 

If the window had not been broken, the shoe- 
maker's trade (or some other) would have been 
encouraged to the amount of a dollar; this is 
that which is not seen. 

And if that which is not seen is taken into con- 
sideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as 
that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, 

it will be understood that neither industrv in 

4 



74 ^ THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

general, nor the sum total of national labor, ia 
aflected, whether windows are broken or not. 

^ow let ns consider James himself. In the 
former supposition, that of the window being 
broken, he spends a dollar, and lias neither more 
nor less than he had before — namelj',' the enjoy- 
ment of a window. 

In the second, where we suppose the window 
not to have been broken, he would have spent his 
dollar in shoes, and w^ould have had at the same 
time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a 
window. 

]^ow, as James forms a part of society, we 
must come to the conclusion, that, taking it alto- 
gether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments 
and its labors, society has lost the value of the 
broken w^indow. 

AYhence we arrive at this unexpected conclu- 
sion : " Society loses the value of things which 
are uselessly destroyed ; " and we must assent to 
a maxim which will make the hair of protection- 
ists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is 
not to encourage national labor ; or, more briefly, 
'^ destruction is not profit." 

What will you say to this, Mr. IT. C. Carey ? what 
will you say, disciples of good Mr. Horace Greeley, 
who moralized and considered how much Ameri- 
can industry would gain by the burning of 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 75 

Chicago, in October, 1871, from the number of 
houses it would be necessary to rebuild ? ^ 

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calcula- 

* As M. Bastiat originally wrote, he introduced at this 
point of his argument, for illustration, French names and 
persons not familiar to the American reader ; and if the trans- 
lation had been made literal, the majority of Americans, as 
they read, would doubtless have said to themselves : " These 
names wliicli M. Bastiat uses are purely fictitious ; for surely 
one really and soberly never put forth such ideas, or entered 
into such estimates." To give, therefore, to the argument 
more of force and reality ; to prove that there is no necessity 
of using fictitious names and characters in its presentation ; 
but that persons of position, intelligence, and great influence 
do think, talk, and believe as M. Bastiat assumes, not only 
in France, but also in the United States, the editor has sub- 
stituted in the text the names of two well-known Americans. 
And that he has taken no unwarranted liberty in so doing, 
he submits the following as evidence. Thus, on the 24th of 
October, 1871, the New York Tribune, then controlled by 
Horace Greeley, in an article in its editorial columns, evi- 
dently written by Mr. Greeley, thus reasoned about the 
great fire which had occurred a few days previous at Chi- 
cago : — 

" The money to replace what has been burned will not 
be sent abroad to enrich foreign manufacturers ; but thanks 
to the wise policy of protection, it will stimulate our own 
manufactures, set our mills to running faster, and give 
employment to thousands of idle workmen. Thus in a short 
time our abundant natural resources will restore what has 
been lost, and in converting the raw material our manufac- 
turing interests will take on a new activity." 

All of which is equivalent to saying, " that fire, war, pesti* 



76 ^ THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

tions, as far as their spirit lias been introduced 
into our political economy ; but I beg of those 
who have indulged in them to consider the subject 
again, from a broader point of view, by taking 
into the account that which is not seen^ and plac- 
ing it alongside of that which is seen. 

The reader must take care to remember that 
there are not two persons only, but three con- 
cerned in the little scene which I have submitted 
to his attention. One of them, James, repre- 

lence, famine, sliip wreck, and otlier calamities, if tliey ^ive 
to certain class interests an opportunity to make and sell 
products at an advance over their current prices in the 
world's markets, and thereby inflict an unnecessary and 
large additional tax on the impoverished inhabitants of a 
distressed city, are not to be regarded wholly in the light of 
evils and disasters." The inhabitants of Chicago, following 
their natural instincts, could not, however, see the applica- 
bility of Mr, Greeley's reasoning in respect to themselves, 
for they forthwith petitioned Congress to allow foreign mer- 
chandise, useful for rebuilding their stores and houses, to 
be imported free of duty ; and Congress, also disagreeing 
with Mr. Greeley, acceded to their petition. 

Again, Mr. Henry C. Carey, who is one of the foremost 
advocates of the "Protection Theory," has within recent 
years said publicly, over and over again, that one of the 
greatest of human calamities — a prolonged war between 
Great Britain and the United States — would be the very best 
possible thing which could happen to promote the industrial 
independence and development of the latter country. — ■ 

Editor. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 77 

sents tlie consumer, reduced, by an act of destruc- 
tion, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another, 
under the title of the glazier, shows us the pro- 
ducer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. 
The third is the shoemaker (or some other trades- 
man), whose labor suffers proportionably by the 
same cause. It is this third person who is alw^ays 
kept in the shade, and who, personating that which 
is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. 
It is he who show^s us how absurd it is to think we 
see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who 
wdll soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see 
a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing 
else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you 
will onl}^ go to the root of all the arguments wdiich 
are adduced in its favor, all you will find will be 
the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — What 
wotdd hecome of the glazier, if nobody ever broke 
windov:s f 

II.— THE DISBANDING OF TROOPS. 

It is the same with a people as it is with a man. 
If it W'islies to give itself some gratification^ it 
naturally considers whether it is worth what it 
costs. To a nation, security is the greatest of ad- 
vantages. If, in order to obtain it, it is necessary 
to have an armv of a hundred thousand men, I 
have nothing to say against it. It is an enjoy- 



78 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

ment bought by a sacrifice of a certain amount of 
the results of labor, which might be used for 
other purposes. Let me not be misunderstood 
upon the extent of my position. A member of 
Congress proposes to disband a hundred thousand 
men, for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of an 
annual tax of fifty millions of dollars. 

If we confine ourselves to this answer — " The 
hundred millions of men, and these hundred mil- 
lions of money, are indispensable to the national 
security. It is security purchased at the sacrifice 
of a certain amount of property ; but w^ithout this 
sacrifice the country might be torn by factions or 
invaded by some foreign power." I have noth- 
ing to object to this argument, which may be true 
or false in fact, but which theoretically contains 
nothing which militates against political economy. 
The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said 
to be an advantage because it profits somebody. 

ITow I am very much mistaken if, the moment 
the author of the proposal has taken his seat, some 
orator will not rise and say — " Disband a hundred 
thousand men ! Do yon know what you are say- 
ing? What will become of them? Where will 
they get a living? Don't you know that work is 
scarce everywhere ? That every field is over- 
stocked ? Would you turn them out of doors to 
increase competition and to still further depress 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 79 

the rate of wages ? Just now, when it is a hard 
matter to liv^e at all, it is a pretty business for the 
State to add an additional hundred thousand per- 
sons to the number of the community who must 
get bread by their own labor. Consider, also, that 
the army consumes arms, clothing, and a great 
variety of other products of labor ; that it makes 
business in garrison towns ; that it is, in short, an 
immense blessing to innumerable purveyors. 
Why, the very bare idea of doing away with all 
this immense industrial movement is enoua^h to 
terrify every one who has at heart the develop- 
ment of the business of the country. Such talk 
always has an effect on all patriotic generous 
minds, and Congress terminates the discussion by 
voting the continued maintenance of the hundred 
thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the 
necessity of the service, and from economical con- 
siderations. It is these latter considerations only 
that I have to consider. 

A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-pay- 
ers fifty millions of money, live and bring to the 
purveyors as much as that fifty millions can sup- 
ply. This is tliat which is seen. 

But fifty millions taken from the pockets of 
the tax-payers cease to maintain these same tax- 
payers and the pui-veyors, to the extent to which 
these fifty millions are invested w^ith a purchasing 



80 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

power of the necessities of life. This is that 
which is not seen. Now make your calculations. 
Cast up, and tell me what profit there is for tlie 
masses? 

I will tell you where the loss lies ; and to sim- 
plify it, instead of speaking of a hundred thousand 
men and fifty millions of money, it shall be of one 
man and five hundred dollars of money. 

We will suppose that we are in the village of 
A. The recruiting sergeants go their round, and 
take oif a man. The United States tax-collectors 
go their round, and take ofl: five hundred dollars, the 
results of taxation. Tiie man and the sum of money 
are taken to form a camp — say at Washington — and 
the money is appropriated to support the soldier 
for a year without doing anything. If you now 
have regard to the interest of the city and popu- 
lation of Washington only, the measure is a very 
advantageous one; but if you look toward the 
village of A., you w^ill judge very differently ; for, 
unless you are very blind indeed, you will see that 
that village has lost a worker, and the five hun- 
dred dollars which w^ould remunerate his labor, as 
well as the activity which the expenditure of that 
money taken away in the form of taxes would 
locally produce. 

At first sight there would seem to be some 
compensation. What took place at the village 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 81 

now takes place at Wasliington, that is all. But 
the loss is to be estimated in this way: — At the 
village, a man dug and worked; heVas a worker. 
At Washington, he turns to the right about and 
to the left about ; he is a soldier. The money 
and the circulation are the same in both cases ; 
but in the one there were three hundred days of 
productive labor, in the other there are three 
hundred days of unproductive labor, supposing, 
of course, that a part of the army is not indispen- 
sable to the public safety. 

Now, suppose the disbanding to take place. 
Yon tell me there will be a surplus of a hundred 
thousand workers, that competition will be stimu- 
lated, and it will reduce the rate of wages. This 
is what you see. 

But what you do not see is this. You do not 
see that to dismiss a hundred thousand soldiers is 
not to annihilate or use up the fifty millions of 
money, but to return it to the tax-payers. You 
do not see that to throw a hundred thousand 
workers on the market, is to throw into it, at the 
same moment, the fifty millions of money needed 
to pay for their labor : that, consequently, the 
same act which increases the supply of hands, 
increases also the demand ; from which it follows, 
that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfound- 
ed. You do not see that, before the disbanding 



82 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

as well as after it, there are in the countrj fifty 
millions of money corresponding with the hundred 
thousand men. That the whole difference consists 
in this : before the disbanding, the country gave 
tlie fifty millions to the hundred thousand men for 
doing nothing ; and that after it, it pays them the 
same sum for working. You do not see, in short, 
that when a tax-payer gives his money either to a 
soldier in exchange for nothing ; or to a worker in 
exchange for something, all the ultimate conse- 
quences of the circulation of this money are the 
same in the two cases ; only, in the second case 
the tax-payer receives something, in the former 
he receives nothing. The result is — a dead loss to 
the nation. 

The sophism which I am here combating will 
not stand the test of progression, which is the 
touchstone of principles. If, when every compen- 
sation is made, and all interests satisfied, there is a 
national jprofit in increasing the army, why not 
enlist as soldiers the entire male population of the 
country? 

III.— TAXES. 

Have you never chanced to hear it said : ^' There 
is no better investment than taxes. Only see 
what a number of families it maintains, and con- 
sider how it reacts upon industry : it is an inex- 
haustible stream, it is life itself." 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 83 

In order to combat this doctrine, I must refer to 
my preceding refutation. Political economy knew 
well enough that its arguments were not so amus- 
ing that it could be said of them, repetitions 
please. It has, therefore, turned the proverb to 
its own use, well convinced that, in its mouth, 
repetitions teach. 

The advantages which officials advocate are 
those which are seen. The benefit which accrues 
to the providers is still that which is seen. This 
blinds all eyes. 

But the disadvantages which the tax-payers 
have to get rid of are those which are not seen. 
And the injury which results from it to the pro- 
viders is still that which is not seen, although this 
ought to be self-evident. 

When an official spends for his own advantage 
an extra hundred cents, it implies that a tax-pa3^er 
spends for his profit a hundred cents less. But 
the expense of the official is seen, because the act 
is performed, while that of the tax-payer is not seen, 
because, alas ! he is prevented from performing it. 

You compare the nation, perhaps, to a parched 
tract of land, and the tax to a fertilizing rain. Be 
it so. But you ought also to ask yourself where 
are the sources of this rain, and whether it is not 
the tax itself which draws away the moisture from 
the ground and dries it up ? 



84 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

Again, you oiiglit to ask yourself whether it is 
possible that the soil can receive as much of this 
precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation ? 

There is one thing very certain, that when 
James counts a hundred cents for the tax- 
gatherer, he receives nothing immediately in re- 
turn. Afterwards, when an official spends three 
hundred cents and returns them to James, it is 
for an equal value in corn or labor. The final 
result is a loss to James of a dollar. 

It is very true tliat often, perhaps very often, 
the official performs for James an equivalent ser- 
vice. In this case there is no loss on either side ; 
there is merely an exchange. Therefore, my 
arguments do not at all apply to useful function- 
aries. All I say is — if you wish to create an 
office, prove its utility. Show that its value to 
James, by the services which it performs for him, 
is equal to what it costs him. But, apart from 
this intrinsic utility, do not bring forward as an 
argument the benefit which it confers upon the 
official, his family, and his providers ; do not 
assert that it encourages labor. 

When James gives a hundred cents to a Govern- 
ment officer for a really useful service, it is ex- 
actly the same as when he gives a hundred cents 
to a shoemaker for a j^air of shoes. 

But when James gives a hundred cents to a 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 85 

Government officer, and receives nothing for tliem 
unless it be annoyances, he might as well give 
them to a thief. It is nonsense to say that the 
Government officer will spend these hundred 
cents to the great profit of national lahor / the 
thief would do the same ; and so would James, 
if he had not been stopped on the road by the 
legal parasite, or by the lawful sponger. 

Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judg- 
ing of things by wliat is seen only, but to judge 
of them by that whicJi is not seen. 

Last year I was on the Committee of Finance 
in the French National Assembly. Every time 
that one of my colleagues spoke of fixing at a 
moderate fio-ure the maintenance of the President 
of the Republic,^ that of the ministers, and of the 
ambassadors, it was answered : — 

'^For the good of the service, it is necessary to 
surround certain offices with splendor and dignity, 
as a means of attracting men of merit to them. 
A vast number of unfortunate persons apply to 
the President of the Republic, and it would be 
placing him in a very painful position to oblige 
him to be constantly refusing them. A certain 
style in the ministerial saloons is a part of the 
machinery of constitutional Governments." 

* Tlien Louis Napoleon. 



86 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

Althougli such, arguments may be despised, 
they nevertheless deserve a serious examination. . 
They are based npon the public interest, whether 
rightly estimated or not ; and, as far as I am con- 
cerned, I have much more respect for them than 
many of our Catos have, who are actuated by a 
narrow spirit of parsimony or jealousy. 

Eut what revolts the economical part of my 
conscience, and makes me blush for the intellec- 
tual attainments of my countrymen, is the favor- 
able reception which is almost always accorded to 
the following proposition : " The luxury of great 
Government officers encourages the arts, industry, 
and labor. The head of the State and his minis- 
ters cannot give banquets and soirees without 
causing life to circulate through all the veins of 
the social body. To reduce their means would 
starve Parisian industry, and consequently that of 
the whole nation." 

I must beg 3^ou, gentlemen, to pay some little 
regard to arithmetic, at least; and not to say be- 
fore the ISTational Assembly in France (lest to its 
shame it should agree with you), that an addition 
gives a different sum, according to whether it is 
added up from the bottom to the top, or from the 
top to the bottom of the column. 

For instance, I want to agree with a drainer to 
make a trench in my field for a hundred sous. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 81 

Just as we liave concluded our arrangement tlio 
tax-gatherer comes, takes my hundred sous, and 
the national revenue being to this extent aug- 
mented, the salary of some great minister is aug- 
mented in a like degree. My bargain, however, 
is at an end, but the minister will have another dish 
added to his table. Upon what ground will you 
dare to affirm that this official expense helps the 
national industry ? Do you not see, that in this 
there is only a reversing of satisfaction and 
labor ? A minister has his table better covered, 
it is true ; but it is just as true that an agricul- 
turist has his field worse drained. A Parisian 
tavern-keeper has gained a hundred sons, I grant 
you ; but then you must grant me that a drainer 
lias been prevented from gaining five francs. It 
all comes to this — that the official and the tavern- 
keeper being satisfied, is that which is seen i 
the field undrained and the drainer deprived of 
his job, is that which is not seen. Dear me ! how 
much trouble there is in proving that two and 
two make four ; and if you succeed in proving it, 
it is said " the thing is so plain it is quite tire- 
some," and they keep on legislating in the same 
old way, as if you had proved nothing at all. 

IV.— THEATEES, FINE ARTS. 

Ought the State to encourage the arts ? 



88 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 



There is certainly mncli to be said on both 
sides of this question. It may be said, in favor 
of the system of voting supplies for this purpose, 
that the arts enlarge, elevate, and harmonize the 
soul of a nation ; that they divert it from too 
great an absorption in material occupations ; en- 
courage in it a love for the beautiful ; and thus 
act favorably on its manners, customs, morals, 
and even on its industry. It may be asked, what 
w^ould become of music in France without her 
Italian theatre and her Conservatoire ; of the 
dramatic art, without her Theatre-Fran§ais ; of 
j)ainting and sculpture, without our collections, 
galleries, and museums? It might eveube asked 
whether, without centralization, and consequently 
the support of the line arts, that exquisite taste 
would be developed which is the noble appendage 
of French labor, and which introduces its produc- 
tions to the whole world ? In the face of such 
results, would it not be the height of imprudence 
tO' renounce this moderate contribution from all 
her citizens, which, in fact, in the eyes of Europe, 
demonstrates their superiority and their glory ? 

To these and many other reasons, whose force 
I do not dispute, arguments no less forcible may 
be opposed. It might first of all be said, that 
there is a question of distributive justice in 
it. Does the right of the legislator extend to 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 89 

aLriclging the wages of the artisan, for the sake 
of adding to the profits of the artists ? M. La- 
martine said, " If you cease to support tlie theatre, 
where will yoii stop ? Will you not necessarily be 
led to withdraw your support from your colleges, 
your museums, your institutes, and your libraries ? " 
It might be answered, if you desire to support 
everything which is good and useful, where will you 
stop ? Will you not necessarily be led to make 
regular appropriations for agriculture, industry, 
commerce, benevolence, education ? Then, is it 
certain that Government aid favors the progress of 
art ? This question is far from being settled, and 
we see very well that the theatres which prosper 
most are those which depend most upon their own 
resources. Moreover, if we come to higher con- 
siderations, we may observe that wants and de- 
sires arise the one from the other, and originate 
in regions which are more and more refined in 
proportion as the public wealth allows of their 
being satisfied; that Government ought not to 
take part in this correspondence, because in a cer- 
tain condition of present fortune it could not by 
taxation stimulate the arts of necessity without 
checking those of luxury, and thus interrupting 
the natural course of civilization. I may observe, 
that these artificial transpositions of wants, tastes, 
labor, and population, place the people in a pre- 



90 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AIJD 

carious and dangerous position, without any solid 
basis. 

These are some of the reasons alleged by the 
adversaries of State intervention in w^hat concerng 
the order in which citizens think their wants and 
desires should be satisfied, and to which, conse- 
quently, their activity should be directed. I am, 
I confess, one of those who think that choice and 
impulse ought to come from below and not from 
above, from the citizen and not from the legis- 
lator ; and the opposite doctrine appears to me 
to tend to the destruction of liberty and of human 
dignity. 

Bat, by a deduction as false as it is unjust, do 
you know what economists are accused of ? It is, 
that when we disapprove of government support, 
we are supposed to disapprove of the thing itself 
whose support is discussed ; and to be the enemies 
of every kind of activity, because we desire to see 
those activities, on the one hand free, and on the 
other seekins: their own reward in themselves. 
Thus, if w^e think that the State should not inter- 
fere by taxation in religious affairs, we are athe- 
ists. If we think the State ought not to inter- 
fere by taxation in education, we are hostile to 
knowledge. If we say that the State ought not 
by taxation to give a fictitious value to land, or to 
any particular branch of industry, we are enemies 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 91 

to property and labor. If we think tliat the 
State ought not to support artists, we are bar- 
barians, who look upon the arts as useless. 

Against such conclusions as these I protest with 
all mj strength. Far from entertaining the ab- 
surd idea of doing away with religion, education, 
property, labor, and the arts, when we say that 
the State ought to protect the free development 
of all these kinds of human activity, without 
helping some of them at the expense of others — 
we think, on the contrary, that all these living 
powers of society would develop themselves more 
harmoniously under the influence of liberty; and 
that, under such an influence, no one of them 
would, as is now often the case, be a source of 
trouble, of abuses, of tyranny, and disorder. 

Our adversaries consider that an activit}^ which 
is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by gov- 
ernment, is an activity destroyed. We think just 
the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not 
in mankind ; ours is in niankind, not in the legis- 
lator. 

Thus M. Lamartine said : " Upon this principle 
we must abolish the public exhibitions, which are 
the honor and the wealth of this country." But 
I would say to M. Lamartine — According to your 
way of thinking, not to support is to abolish ; be- 
cause setting out upon the maxim that nothing 



92 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

exists independently of the will of tlie State, you 
conclude that nothing lives but what the State 
causes to live. 

To return to the fine arts. There are, I repeat, 
many strong reasons to be brought, both for and 
against the system of government assistance. The 
reader must see that the especial object of this 
work leads me neither to explain these reasons, 
nor to decide in their favor, nor against them. 

But M. Lamar tine has advanced one argument 
which I cannot pass by in silence, for it is closely con- 
nected with this economic study. " The econom- 
ical question, as regards theatres, is comprised in 
one word — labor. It matters little what is the 
nature of this labor ; it is as fertile, as productive 
a labor as anv other kind of labor in the nation. 
The theatres in France, you know, feed and sal- 
ar}^ no less than 80,000 workmen of different kinds ; 
painters, masons, decorators, costumers, architects, 
&c., which constitute the very life and movement 
of several parts of the capital, and on this account 
they ought to have your sympathies." Your 
sympathies ! say rather your money. 

And farther on he says : " The pleasures of 
Paris are the labor and the consumption of the 
provinces, and the luxuries of the rich are the 
wages and bread of 200,000 workmen of every de- 
scription, who live by the manifold industry of 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SESN. 93 

tlie theatres, and who receive from these noble 
pleasures, which render France illustrious, the sus- 
tenance of their lives and the necessaries of their 
families and children. It is to them that you will 
give 60,000 francs." (^^ei'J well ; very well. 
Great applause.) For my part I am constrained 
to say, " Yery bad ! very bad ! " confining this 
oj^inion, of course, within the bounds of the econ- 
omical question which we are discussing. 

Yes, it is to the workmen of the theatres that a 
part, at least, of these 60,000 francs will go ; a few 
bribes, perhaps, may be abstracted on the way. 
Perhaps, if w^ were to look a little more closely 
into the matter, we might find that the cake had 
gone another way, and that those workmen were 
fortunate who had come in for a few crumbs. But 
I will allow, for the sake of argument, that the 
entire sum does go to the painters, decorators, &c. 

This is that which is seen. But whence does 
it come ? This is the other side of the question, 
and quite as important as the former. Where do 
these 60,000 francs spring from ? and wdiere would 
they go, if a vote of the legislature did not direct 
them first toward the Treasury and thence toward 
the theatres ? This is what is not seen. Certain- 
ly, nobody will think of maintaining that the 
legislative vote has caused this sum to be hatched 
in a ballot-box ; that it is a pure addition made to 



91 THA.T WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

tlie national wealth ; that but for this miraculous 
vote these 60,000 francs would have been for ever 
invisible and impalpable. It must be admitted 
that all that the majority can do is to decide that 
they shall be taken from one place to be sent to 
another ; and if they take one direction, it is only 
because they have been diverted from another. 

This being the case, it is clear that the tax-payer, 
who has contributed one franc, will no longer 
have this franc at his own disposal. It is clear 
that he will be deprived of some gratification to 
the amount of one franc ; and that the workman, 
whoever he may be, wdio would ha^e received it 
from him for some service, will be deprived of a 
benefit to that amount. Let us not, therefore, be 
led by a childish illusion into believing that the 
vote of the 60,000 francs may add anything what- 
ever to the well-being of the country, and to na- 
tional labor. It displaces enjoyments, it transposes 
wages — that is all. 

Will it be said that for one kind of gratification, 
and one kind of labor, it substitutes more urgent, 
more moral, more reasonable gratifications and 
labor? I might dispute this; I might say, by 
taking 60,000 francs from the tax-payers, you 
diminish the wages of laborers, drainers, carpen- 
ters, blacksmiths, and increase in proportion those 
of the singers and actors. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 95 

There is nothing to prove that this latter class 
calls for more sympathy than the former. M. 
Lamartine does not say that it is so. He himself 
says that the labor of the theatres is as fertile, as 
productive as any other (not more so); and this 
maybe doubted; for the best proof that the latter 
is not so fertile as the former lies in this, that the 
other is to be called upon to assist it. 

But this comparison between the value and the 
intrinsic merit of different kinds of labor forms 
no part of my present subject. All I have to do 
here is to show, that if M. Lamartine and those 
persons who commend his line of argument have 
seen on one side the salaries gained by the pro- 
viders of the comedians, thev ouo-ht on the other 
to have seen the salaries lost by the providers of 
the tax-payers : for want of this, they have ex- 
posed themselves to ridicule by mistaking a trans- 
ferment for a gain. If they were true to their 
doctrine, there would be no limits to their demands 
for government aid ; for that which is true of one 
franc and of 60,000 is true, under parallel circum- 
stances, of a hundred millions of francs. 

When taxes are the subject of discussion, you 
ought to prove their utility by reasons from the 
root of the matter, but not by this unlucky asser- 
tion — " The public expenses support the working 
classes.'' This assertion disguises the important 



96 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

fact, tlmtpuhliG expenses always supersede 2-^^'^'vaU 
expenses, and that therefore we bring a livelihood 
to one workman instead of another, but add noth- 
ing to the share of the working class as a whole. 
Your arguments are fashionable enough, but they 
are too absurd to be justified bj anything like 
reason. 

v.— PUBLIC WORKS. 

J^othing is more natural than that a nation, after 
having assured itself that an enterprise will benefit 
the community, should have it executed bjMneans 
of a general assessment. But I lose patience, I 
confess, when I hear some one, assuming to occupy 
a high moral, patriotic, and economic standpoint, 
assert, " that to authorize the prosecution of pub- 
lic works will be a means of creating opportunity 
to labor for the workmen." 

The State opens a road, builds a palace, straight- 
ens a street, cuts a canal, and so gives work to 
certain workmen — tins is ivliat is seen: but it de- 
prives certain other workmen of work — and this 
is what is not seen. 

The road is begun. A thousand workmen come 
every morning, leave every evening, and take their 
wao^es — this is certain. If the road had not been 
decreed, if the supplies had not been voted, these 
good people would have had neither work nc: 
wages there ; this also is certain. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 97 

13ut is tills all ? Does not the operation, as a 
whole, contain something else ? At the moment 
when the presiding officer announces that the bill 
anthorizing the inception of new public works has 
become a law, does the money necessary to pay 
for them descend miraculously on a moonbeam into 
tlie national coffers? Bat in order tliat the w^hole 
scheme may be made complete, must not the State 
organize the receipts as well as the expenditure ? 
must it not set its tax-gatherers and tax-payers to 
work, the former to gather and the latter to pay. 

Study the question, now, in both its elements. 
"While you state the destination given by the State 
to the millions voted, do not neglect to state also 
the destination which the tax-payer would have 
given, but cannot now give, to the same. Then 
you will understand that a public enterprise is a 
coin with two sides. Upon one is engraved a la- 
borer at work, with this device, that which is seen / 
on the other is a laborer out of work, wnth the 
device, that which is not seen. 

The sophism which this work is intended to 
refute is the more dangerous when applied to pub- 
lic works, inasmuch as it serves to justify the most 
wanton enterprises and extravagance. When a 
railway or a bridge are really needed, it is sufficient 
to demonstrate their necessity to justify an appro- 
priation of the public money for their constructi*on, 
5 



98 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

But if this immediate necessity cannot be demon- 
strated, what do the philanthropic patriotic men 
next saj ? " ^' We tnust find worhfor the working 
TnenP 

Public works that under ordinary circumstances 
would not be thought of are authorized by tbe 
public authorities. 

The great ]^apoleon, it is said, thought he was 
doing a very philanthropic work by causing 
ditches to be made and then filled up. He said, 
therefore, "What signifies the result? All we 
want is to see wealth spread among tbe laboring 
classes." 

But let us go to the root of the matter. We 
are deceived b}^ money. To demand the co-oper- 
ation of all the citizens in a common work, in the 
form of money, is in reality to demand a co-oper- 
ation in kind; for every one procures, by his own 
labor, the sum for which he is taxed. J^ow, if all 
the citizens were to be called together, and made 
to execute, in conjunction, a work useful to all, 
this w^ould be easily understood ; their reward 
would be found in the results of the work itself. 

But after having called them together, if you 
force them to make roads which no one will pass 
through, palaces which no one will inhabit, and 
this under the pretext of finding them work, it 
would be absurd, and they would have a right to 



THA.T Yv^HICH IS NOT SEEN. 99 

argue, " With this labor we have nothing to do ; 
we prefer working on our own account." 

A proceeding which consists in making the citi- 
zens co-operate in giving money but not labor 
does not, in any way, alter the general results. 
The only thing is, that the loss would react upon 
all parties. By the former those whom the State 
employs escape their part of the loss, by adding 
it to that which their fellow-citizens have already 
suffered. 

There was an article in the Constitution which 
the Republic of France in 18i8 adopted, which 
read as follows : 

" Society favors and encourages the development 
of labor — by the establishment of public works, 
by the State, the departments, and the parishes, 
as a means of employing persons who are in want 
of work." 

As a temporary measure, on any emergency, 
during a hard winter, this interference with the 
tax-pay ei'S may have its use. It acts in the same 
way as charity. It adds nothing either to labor 
or to wages, but it takes labor and wages from or- 
dinary times to give them, at a loss it is true, to 
times of difficulty. 

As a permanent, general, systematic measure, it 
is nothing else than a ruinous mystification, an 
impossibility, which shows a little excited labor 



100 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

wliicli is seen, and hides a great deal of prevented 
labor which is not seen. 

VI.— THE MIDDLE-MEN. 

Society is the total of the forced or voluntary- 
services which men perform for each other ; that 
is to say, of^:>w5^^c services and private services. 

Tlie former, imposed and regulated by tlie law, 
which it is not always easy to change, even when 
it is desirable, may survive with it their own nse- 
f ulness, and still preserve the name of public ser- 
vices, even when they are no longer services at all, 
but Y^tliQY pullic annoyances. The latter belong 
to tlie sphere of the will, of individual responsi- 
bility. Every one gives and receives what he 
wishes, and what he can, after he has considered 
the matter in his own mind. The exchange of 
private services has always the presumption of real 
utility, in exact proportion to their comparative 
value. 

This is the reason why the former description 
of services so often become stationary, while the 
latter obey the law of progress. 

While the exaggerated development of public 
services, by the waste of strength which it involves, 
fastens upon society a fatal sycophancy, it is a sin- 
gular thing that several modern sects, attributing 
this character to free and private services, are en- 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 101 

deavoring to transform professions into func- 
tions. 

These sects violently oppose what they call 
intermediates. They would gladly suppress the 
capitalist, the banker, the speculator, the projector, 
the merchant and the trader, accusing them of in- 
terposing between production and consumption, 
to extort from both, without giving either any- 
thing in return. Or ratlier, they would transfer 
to the State the work which they accomplish, for 
this work cannot be suppressed. 

The sophism of the Socialists on this point con- 
sists in showing to the public what it pays to the 
intermediates in exchange for their services, and 
concealing from the public what it would be 
necessary to pay to the State for doing the same 
thing. Here is the usual conflict between what 
is before our eyes and what is perceptible to the 
mind only ; between loJiat is seen and what is not 
seen. 

It was at the time of the scarcity in France, in 
1847, that the Frencli Socialists attempted and 
succeeded in popularizing their erroneous theory. 
They knew very well that the most absurd no- 
tions have always a chance with people who are 
suifering; inalisimda fames. 

Therefore, by the help of the fine words, " traf- 
ficking in men by men, speculation on hunger, 



102 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

monopoly/' thej began to deprecate commerce, 
and to cast a doubt over its benefits. 

" AVhat can be the nse," they say, "of leaving 
to the merchants the care of importing food from 
the United States and the Crimea ? Why do not 
the State, the departments, and the towns, organ- 
ize a service for provisions and a magazine for 
stores ? They would sell at a return jprice, and 
the people, poor things, would be exempted from 
the tribute which they pay to free, that is, to ego- 
tistical, individual, and lawless commerce." 

The tribute paid by the people to commerce is 
that which is seen. The tribute which the people 
would pay to the State, or to its agents, in the 
Socialist S3^stem, is what is not seen. 

In what does this pretended tribute, which the 
people pay to commerce, consist? In this: that 
two men render each other a mutual service, in 
all freedom, and under the pressure of competition 
and reduced prices. 

When the hungry stomach is at Paris, and grain 
which can satisfy it is at Chicago, the suffering 
cannot cease till the grain is brought into contact 
with the stomach. There are three methods by 
which tliis contact may be effected. 1st. The 
famished men may go themselves and fetch, the 
grain. 2d. They may leave this task to those to 
whose trade it belongs. 3d. They may club to- 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 103 

^ether, and give tlie office in charge to public 
functionaries. Which of these three methods 
possesses the greatest advantages ? In every time, 
in all countries, and the more free, enlightened, 
and experienced they are, men liave volinitarily 
chosen the second- I confess that this is sufficient, 
in my opinion, to justify this choice. I cannot 
believe that mankind, as a whole, is deceiving it- 
self upon a point which touches its interest so 
closely. But let us now consider the subject. 

For thirty-six millions of citizens to go and fetch 
the grain they want from Chicago, is a manifest 
impossibility. The first method, then, goes for 
nothing. The consumers cannot act for themselves. 
The}' must, of necessity, have recourse to inter- 
Tnediates, officials or agents. 

But observe, at the same time, that the first of 
these three methods would be the most natural. 
In reality, the hungry man has to fetch his grain. 
It is a task which concerns himself, a service due 
to himself. If another person, on whatever ground, 
performs this service for him, takes the task upon 
himself, this latter has a claim upon him for a 
compensation. I mean by this to say, that inter- 
mediates contain in themselves the principle of 
remuneration. 

However that may be, since we must refer to 
what the Socialists call a parasite, I would ask, 



101 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

which of the two is the most exacting parasite, the 
merchant or the official ? 

Commerce (free of course, otherwise I could not 
reason upon it), commerce, I say, is led by its own 
interests to study the seasons, to give daily state- 
ments of the state of the crops, to receive informa- 
tion from every part of the globe, to foresee wants, 
to take precautions beforehand. It has vessels 
always ready, correspondents everywhere ; and it 
is its immediate interest to bu}^ at the lowest pos- 
sible price, to economize in all the details of its 
operations, and to attain the greatest results by 
the smallest efforts. It is not the French mer- 
chants only who are occupied in procuring pro- 
visions for France in time of need ; and if their 
interest leads them irresistibly to accomplish their 
task at the smallest possible cost, the competition 
which they create amongst each other leads them 
no less irresistibly to cause the consumers to par- 
take of the profits of those realized savings. The 
grain arrives : it is to the interest of commerce to 
sell it as soon as possible, so as to avoid risks, to 
realize its investments and take advantage of the 
first opportunity to buy again. 

Directed by the comparison of prices, commerce 
distributes food over the w^hole surface of the 
country, beginning always at the highest price, 
that is, wdiere the demand is the greatest. It is 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. ICo 

impossible to imagine an organization more coni- 
pletelj^ calculated to meet the interest of those who 
ai^e in want than the existing organization of com- 
merce, and the beauty of this organization, unper- 
ceived as it is by the Socialists, results from the 
very fact that it is free. It is true, the consumer 
is obliged to reimburse commerce for the expenses 
of conveyance, freight, store-rooms, commissions, 
etc., but can any^system be devised in which he wlio 
eats grain is not obliged to defray the expenses, 
whatever they may be, of bringing it within his 
reach ? The remuneration for the service performed 
has to be paid also; but as regards its amount, 
this is reduced to the smallest possible sum by com- 
petition ; and as regards its justice, it would be very 
strange if the artisans of Paris would not w^ork for 
the artisans of Marseilles, when the merchants of 
Marseilles work for the artisans of Paris. 

But if, according to the Socialist ideas, the State 
were to stand in the place of commerce, what 
would happen? I should like to be informed 
where the saving would be to the public ? Would 
it be in the price of purchase ? Imagine the dele- 
gates of 40,000 parishes arriving at Chicago on a 
given day, and on the day of need : imagine the 
effect upon prices. Would the saving be in the 
expenses ? Would fewer vessels be required ; 
fewer sailors, fewer teamsters, fewer railways ? or 



106 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

would you be exempt from the payment of all 
these things ? "Would it be in the profits of the 
merchants ? Would your officials go to Chicago 
for nothing ? Would they travel and work on tlie 
principle of fraternity ? Must they not live ? 
Must not they be paid for their time ? And do 
you believe that these expenses would not exceed 
a thousand times the two or three per cent, which 
the merchant gains, at the rate at which he is ready 
to treat ? 

And then consider the difficulty of levying so 
many taxes, and of dividing so much food. Think 
of the injustice, of the abuses inseparable from 
such an enterprise. Think of the responsibility 
which would weigh upon the Government. 

The Socialists, who have invented these follies, 
and who, in the days of distress, have introduced 
them into the minds of the masses, take to them- 
selves literally the title of advanced men / and it 
is not without some danger that custom, that ty- 
rant of tongues, authorizes the term, and the senti- 
ment which it involves. Advanced ! This sup- 
poses that these gentlemen can see further than 
the common people ; that their only fault is that 
they are too much in advance of their age ; and 
if the time is not yet come for suppressing certain 
parasites on the people, the fault is to be attribu- 
ted to the public which is in the rear of Socialism. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 107 

I say, from my soul and my conscience, the reverse 
is tlie truth; and I know not to what barbarous 
age we should have to go back, if we would find 
the level of Socialist knowledge on this subject. 
These modern sectarians incessantly oppose asso- 
ciation to actual society. They overlook the fact 
that society, under a free regulation, is a true 
association, far superior to any of those which 
proceed from their fertile imaginations. 

Let me illustrate this by an ex'ample. Before 
a man, when he gets up in the morning, can put 
on a coat, ground must have been enclosed, broken 
up, drained, tilled, and sown with a particular 
kind of plant; flocks must have been fed, and 
have given their wool ; this wool must have been 
spun, woven, dyed, and converted into cloth ; this 
cloth must have been cut, sewed, and made into a 
garment. And this series of operations implies 
a number of others; it supposes the employment 
of instruments for plowing, &c., sheepfolds, sheds, 
coal, machines, carriages, &c. 

If society w^ere not a perfectly real association, 
a person who wanted a coat would be reduced to 
the necessity of working in solitude ; that is, of 
performing for himself the innumerable parts of 
this series, from the first stroke of the pickaxe to 
the last stitch which concludes the work. But, 
thanks to the power of association and co-opera* 



108 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

tioTi, which is the distinguishing characteristic of 
our race, these operations are distributed amongst 
a multitude of workers ; and they are further 
subdivided, for the common good, to an extent 
that, as the consumption becomes more active, 
one single operation is able to support a new 
trade. 

Then comes the division of the profits, which 
operates according to the contingent vahie which 
each lias brought to the entire work. If this is 
not association, I should like to know wliat is. 

Observe, that as no one of these workers lias 
obtained the smallest particle of matter from 
nothingness, they are confined to performing for 
each other mutual services, and to helping each 
other in a common object, and that all may be 
considered, with respect to others, intermediates. 
If, for instance, in the course of the operation, 
the transportation becomes important enough to 
occupy one person, the spinning another, the 
weaving another, why should the first be con- 
sidered 2i parasite more than the other two ? The 
transportation must be made, must it not ? Does 
not he who performs it devote to it his time and 
trouble ? and by so doing does he not spare that 
of his colleagues ? Do these do more or other 
than this for him ? Are they not ecpally depen- 
dent for remuneration, that is, for the division of 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 109 

the produce, upon the law of reduced price ? Is 
it not, in all liberty, for the common good that 
this separation of work takes place, and that these 
arrangements are entered into ? What do we 
want with a reformer then, who, under pretense 
of organizing for us, comes despotically to break 
up our voliintarj^ arrangements, to check the divi- 
sion of labor, to substitute isolated efforts for 
combined ones, and to send civilization back ? Is 
association, as I describe it here, in itself less as- 
sociation, because every one enters and leaves it 
freely, chooses his place in it, judges and bargains 
for himself on his own responsibility, and brings 
w^ith him the spring and warrant of personal in- 
terest ? That it may deserve this name, is it 
necessary that a pretended reformer should come 
and impose upon us his plan and his will, and, as 
it were, to concentrate mankind in himself? 

The more we examine these advanced srJiools^ 
the more do w^e become convinced that there is 
but one thing at the root of them ; ignorance pro- 
claiming itself infallible, and claiming despotism 
in the name of this infallibility. 

VII. —RESTRICTIONS. 

Mr. Prohibitionist, who w^as always talking 
about the necessity of fostering domestic industry, 
devoted his time and capital to converting the ore 



110 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 



fonnd on his land into iron. As natnre had been 
more lavish towards the Belgians, they furnished 
the French with iron cheaper than Mr. Prohibi- 
tionist ; which means, that all the French, or 
France, could obtain a given quantity of iron with 
less labor by buying it of the honest Flemings. 
Therefore, guided by their own interest, they did 
not fail to do so ; and every day there might be 
seen a multitude of nail-smiths, blacksmiths, 
cart Wrights, machinists, farriers, and laborers, 
going themselves, or sending intermediates, to 
supply themselves in Belgium. This displeased 
Mr. Prohibitionist and his friends exceedingly. 

At first, it occurred to him to put an end to this 
abuse by his own efforts : it was the least he could 
do, for he was the only sufferer. " I will take 
my gun," said he ; " I will pot four pistols into 
my belt ; I will fill my cartridge box ; I will gird 
on my sword, and go thus equipped to the fron- 
tier. There, the first blacksmith, nail-smith, far- 
rier, machinist, or locksmith, wdio presents him- 
self to do his own business and not mine, I will 
kill, to teach him how to live." At the moment 
of starting, Mr. Prohibitionist made a few reflec- 
tions which calmed down his warlike ardor a little. 
He said to himself, "In the first place, it is not 
absolutely impossible that the purchasers of iron, 
my countrymen and enemies, should take the 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. Ill 

tliiijg ill, and, instead of letting me kill them, 
Bbould kill me instead ; and then, even were I to 
call out all my servants, we should not be able to 
defend the passages. In short, this proceeding 
would cost me very dear, much more so than the 
result would be worth." 

Mr. Prohibitionist was on the point of resign- 
ing himself to his sad fate, that of being only as 
free as the rest of the world, when a ray of light 
darted across his brain. He recollected that at 
Paris there is a great manufactory of laws. 
" What is a law ? " said he to himself. " It is a 
measure to which, when once it is decreed, be it 
good or bad, everj^body is bound to conform. 
For the execution of the same a public force is or- 
ganized, and to constitute the said public force, 
men and money are drawn from the whole nation. 
If, then, I could only get the great Parisian law- 
manufactory to pass a little law, ' Belgian iron is 
hereafter prohibited^ I should obtain the follow- 
ing results : — The Government would replace the 
few valets that I was going to send to the -fron- 
tier by 20,000 of the sons of those refractory 
blacksmiths, farriers, artisans, machinists, lock- 
smiths, nail-smiths, and laborers. Then to keep 
these 20,000 custom-house officers in health and 
good humor, it would distribute among them 
. 25,000,000 of francs taken from these blacksmiths. 



112 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

nail-smiths, artisans, and laborers. They wonld 
guard the frontier much better ; would cost me 
nothing; I should not be exposed to tlie brutality 
of the brokers ; should sell the iron at my own. 
price, and have the sweet satisfaction, of seeing 
our great people thoroughly humbugged. Then 
they should be encouraged to continually style 
themselves as promoters of domestic industry, 
and as alwa3^sand under all circumstances opposed 
to competition with the pauper labor of other 
countries. Oh ! it w^ould be a capital joke, and 
deserves to be tried." 

So our friend Prohibitionist went to the law 
manufactory. Anotlier time, perhaps, I shall re- 
late the story of his underhand dealings, but now 
I shall merely mention his visible proceedings. 
He brouglit the following consideration before the 
minds of the leo-islatino- gentlemen — 

" Belgian iron is sold in France at ten francs, 
which obliges me to sell mine at the same price. I 
should like to sell at fifteen, but cannot do so on 
account of this Belgian iron, which I wish was at 
the bottom of the Red Sea. I beg you will make 
a law that no more Belgian iron shall enter France. 
Immediately I will raise my price five francs, and 
these are the consequences : 

"For every hundred-weight of iron that I shall 
deliver to the public, I shall receive fifteen francs 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 113 

instead of ten ; I shall grow rich more rapidly, 
extend my traffic, and employ more workmen. 
My workmen and I shall spend much more freel}', 
to the 2;reat advantas^e of our tradesmen for miles 
around. These latter, having more custom, will 
furnish more employment to trade, and activity 
on both sides will increase in the country. This 
additional sum of money which you will drop into 
my strong-box, will, like a stone thrown into a 
lake, give birth to an infinite number of concentric 
circles of wealth and render everybody embraced 
by them comfortable and happy." 

Charmed with his discourse, delighted to learn 
that it is so easy to promote, by legislating, the 
prosperity of a people, the law-makers voted the 
restriction. " Talk of labor and economy," they 
said, " what is the use of these painful means of 
increasing the national wealth, when all that is 
needed for this object is to pass a law imposing a 
tax?" 

And, in fact, the law produced all the conse- 
quences announced by Mr. Prohibitionist : but it 
is also to be noted, that it produced others which 
he had not foreseen. To do him justice, his rea- 
soning was not false, but only incomplete. In en- 
deavoring to obtain a privilege, he had taken 
cognizance of the effects which are seen^ leaving 
in the background those which cire not seen. He 



114 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

had pointed out only two personages, whereas 
there are three concerned in the affair. It is for 
us to supply this involuntary or premeditated 
omission. 

It is true, the money, thus directed by law into 
Mr. Prohibitionist's strong-box, is advantageous 
to him and to those whose labor it would encour- 
age; and if the Act had caused the money to 
descend from the moon, these good effects would 
not have been counterbalanced by any correspond- 
ing evils. But unfortunately, the mj'-sterious 
money does not come from the moon, but from 
the pocket of a blacksmith, or a nail-smith, or a 
cartwright, or a farrier, or a laborer, or a ship- 
wright ; in a word, from James, who gives it 
now witliout receiving a grain more of iron than 
when he was paying ten francs. Thus, we can see 
at a glance that this very much alters tlie state of 
the case ; for it is very evident that Mr. Prohi- 
bitionist's jprofit is compensated by James's loss^ 
and all that Mr. Prohibitionist can do with the 
money, for the encouragement of national labor, 
James might have done himself. The stone has 
only been thrown upon one part of the lake, be- 
cause the law has prevented it from being thrown 
upon another. 

Therefore, that which is not seen is more impor- 
tant than that which is seen^ and at this point there 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 115 

remains, as the residue of the operation, a piece ol 
injustice, and, sad to say, a piece of injustice per- 
petrated by the law ! 

This is not all. I have said that there is always 
a third person left in the background. I must 
now bring him forward, that he may reveal to us 
a second loss of five francs. Then we shall have 
the entire results of the transaction. 

Our former friend James is the possessor of fif- 
teen francs, the fruit of his labor. He is now free. 
"VYhat does he do with his fifteen francs? He 
purchases some article of fashion for ten francs, 
and with it he pays (or the intermediate pays for 
him) for the hundred-weight of Belgian iron. 
After this he has five francs left. He does not 
throw them into the river, but (and this is what 
is not seen) he gives them to some tradesman in 
exchange for some enjoyment; to a bookseller, 
for instance, for " a History." 

Thus, as far as national labor is concerned, it is 
encouraged to the amount of fifteen francs, viz. : — 
ten francs for the Paris article, five francs to the 
bookselling trade. 

As to James, he obtains for his fifteen francs 
two gratifications, viz. : — 

1st. A hundred- weight of iron. 

2d. A book. 

The decree is put in force. How does it affect 



116 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

the condition of James ? How does it affect the 
national labor ? 

James pays every centime of his five francs to 
Mr. Proliibitionist, and therefore is deprived of the 
pleasure of a book, or of some other thing of equal 
value. He loses five francs. This must be ad- 
mitted ; it cannot fail to be admitted, that when 
the restriction raises the price of things, the con- 
sumer loses the difference. 

But, then, it is said, national lahor is the gainer. 

!N"o, it is not the gainer ; for since the Act, it is 
no more encouraged than it w^as before, to the 
amount of fifteen francs. 

The only thing is that, since the Act, the fif- 
teen francs of James go to the metal trade, while 
before it was put in force, they w^ere divided be- 
tween the milliner and the bookseller. 

The violence used by Mr. Prohibitionist on the 
frontier, or that which he causes to be used by 
the law, may be judged very differently in a moral 
point of view. Some persons consider that plun- 
der is perfectly justifiable, if only sanctioned by 
law. But, for myself, I cannot imagine anything 
more aggravating. However it may be, the econ- 
omical results are .the same in both cases. 

Look at the thing as you will ; but if you are 
impartial, you will see that no good can come of 
legal or illegal plunder. We do not deny that it 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 117 

affords Mr. Prohibitionist, or his trade, or, if you 
will, national industry, a profit of five francs. 
But we affirm that it causes two losses, one to 
James, who pays fifteen francs where lie otherwise 
would have paid ten ; the other to national indus- 
try, which does not receive the difference. Take 
your choice of these two losses, and offset it against 
the profit which we allow in the first instance. 
The other will prove not the less a dead loss. 
Here then is the moral : To take by violence is 
not to produce, but to destroy. Truly, if taking 
by violence was producing, this country of ours 
would be a little richer than she is. 

VIII.— MACHINERY. 

" A curse on machines ! Every year their in- 
creasing powder devotes millions of workmen to 
pauperism, by depriving them of work, and there- 
fore of washes and bread. A curse on machines ! " 

This is a cry which in old times was very com- 
mon; and is not now wholly unknown. 

But to curse machines is to curse the spirit of 
humanity ! 

It puzzles me to conceive how any man can feel 
any satisfaction in such a doctrine. 

For, if true, what is its inevitable consequence ? 
That there is no activity, prosperity, wealth, or 
happiness possible for any people, except for those 



118 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

who are stupid and inert, and to whom God has not 
granted the fatal gift of knowing how to think, to 
observe, to combine, to invent, and to obtain the 
greatest results with the smallest means. On the 
contrary, rags, mean huts, poverty, and inanition, 
are the inevitable lot of every nation which seeks 
and finds in iron, fire, wdnd, electricity, magnetism, 
the laws of chemistry and mechanics, in a word, 
in the powers of natm^e, an assistance to its natural 
powers. We might as well say with Rousseau — • 
*' Every man that thinks is a depraved animal." 

This is not all. If this doctrine is true, since 
all men think and invent, since all, from first to 
last, and at every moment of their existence, seek 
the co-operation of the powers of nature, and try 
to make the most of a little, by reducing either the 
work of their hands or their expenses, so as to ob- 
tain the greatest possible amount of gratification 
with the smallest possible amount of labor, it must 
follow, as a matter of course, that the whole of 
mankind is rushing towards its decline, by the 
same mental aspiration towards progress which 
torments each of its members. 

Hence, it ought to be made known, by statis- 
tics, that the inhabitants of the United States, 
abandoning that land of machines, seek for work 
in Turkey, where they are little used ; and, by 
history, that barbarism helps the progress of civili- 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 119 

zation, and tliat civilization flourishes in times of 
ignorance and barbarism. 

There is evidently in this mass of contradic- 
tions something which revolts us, and which leads 
us to suspect that the problem contains within it 
an element of solution which has not been suffi- 
ciently disengaged. 

Here is the whole mystery : hehind that which 
is seen lies something which is not seen. I will 
endeavor to bring it to light. The demonstration 
I shall give will only be a repetition of the pre- 
ceding one, for the problems are one and the same. 

Men have a natural propensity to make the 
best bargain they can, when not prevented by an 
opposing force ; that is, they like to obtain as 
much as they possibly can for their labor, whether 
the advantage is obtained from ?i foreign producer 
or a skilful mechanical producer. 

The theoretical objection which is made to the 
exercise of this propensity is the same in both in- 
stances. In each instance it is claimed that the 
exercise of this propensity restricts (at least ap- 
parently) the opportunities for labor. But the 
way to make labor active and in demand, is to 
freely allow every one to obtain as much as pos- 
sible for the results of their labor ; to use such 
results as they may see fit ; to make the best bar- 
gains possible ; and the most practical way of pre- 



120 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

venting men from following their natmml pro- 
pensities in these respects, is to invoke the aid of 
force and enact restrictions. 

Thus, the legislator at one time forbids foreign 
competition, and at another time the legislators 
or combinations of individuals forbid mechanical 
competition.* For what other means can exist for 
arresting a propensity which is natural to all men, 
but that of depriving them of their liberty? 



* When macliines for tlie spinning and weaving of cotton 
were first introdaced into England, tlie inventors were afraid 
to work tliem openly, and their lives were threatened. Sub- 
sequently, when the value of the inventions became recog- 
nized, Parliament, in order to prevent foreign competition, 
prohibited, under severe penalties for the violation of the 
law, the export of any textile machinery, and also the emi- 
gration of artificers. 

As recently as 1830 agricultural laborers banded together 
in England, systematically destroyed all the machinery of 
many farms, down even to the common drills. A news- 
paper report of the day, says : — " The men conducted them- 
selves with civility ; and such was their consideration, that 
they moved the machines out of the farm-yards to prevent 
injury arising to the cattle from the nails and splinters that 
flew about while the machinery was being destroyed. They 
could not makeup their minds as to the propriety of destroy- 
ing a horse churn, and therefore that machine was passed 
over." 

Again, as recently as 1873, the rules of the associated 
masons and bricklayers of New York, would not allow work 
on the construction of buildings to go on, the contractors of 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 121 

l^owadajs the legislator restricts liis opposi- 
tion to only one of these combinations — the for- 
eign. In old times he was more consistent, for he 
opposed both. 

We need not be surprised at this. On a wrong 
road, inconsistency is inevitable ; if it were not 
so, mankind would be sacrificed. A false princi- 
ple never has been, and never will be, carried out 
to the end. 

Now for our demonstration, which shall not be 
a long one. 

James had two dollars, which he had gained by 
two workmen ; but it occurs to him that an ar- 
rangement of ropes and weights might be made 
w^hich would diminish the labor by half. There- 
fore he obtains the same advantage, saves a dollar 
and discharges a workman. 

He discharges a workman : this is that which 
is seen. 

And seeing this only, it is said, " See how 
misery attends civilization ; this is the way tliat 
liberty is fatal to equality. The human mind has 
made a conquest, and immediately a workman is 
cast into the gulf of pauperism. James may pos- 
sibly employ the two workmen, but then he will 

wliicli used macliinery for elevating bricks and mortar, in 

place of having the same carried up in hods, on the shoulders 

of laborers. 

6 



122 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

give tliem only half tlieir wages, for tliey will com- 
pete with each otlier, and offer themselves at the 
lowest price. Thus the rich are always growing 
richer, and the poor, poorer. Society wants re- 
modelling." A very fine conclusion, and worthy 
of the preamble. 

Happily, preamble and conclusion are both 
false, because behind the half of the phenomenon 
which is seen lies the other half, which is not 
seen. 

The dollar saved by James is not seen, no more 
are the necessary effects of this saving. 

Since, in consequence of his invention, James 
spends only one dollar on hand labor in affecting 
a result which formerly required the expenditure 
of two dollars, another dollar remains to him. 

If, then, there is in the world a workman with 
unemployed arms, there is also in the world a 
capitalist with an unemploj^ed dollar. These two 
elements meet and combine, and it is as clear as 
daylight that between the supply and demand of 
labor, and between the supply and demand of 
wages, the relation is in no way changed. 

The invention and the workman paid with the 
first dollar now perform the w^ork w^hich was 
formerly accomplished by two workmen. The 
second w^orkman, paid with the second dollar, 
realizes a new kind of work. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 123 

AYhat is the change, tlien, which has taken 
place ? An additional national advantage has 
been gained ; in other words, the invention is a 
gratuitous triumph — a gratuitous profit for man- 
kind. 

From the form which I have given to my 
demonstration, the following inference might be 
drawn : — " It is the capitalist who reaps all the 
advantage from machinery. The working class, 
if it only suffers temporarily, never profits by it, 
since, by your own showing, it displaces a portion 
of the national labor, without diminishing it, it is 
true, bnt also without increasing it." 

I do not pretend, in this slight treatise, to 
answer every objection ; the only end I have in 
view, is to combat a vulgar, widely spread, and 
dangerous prejudice. I want to prove that a new 
machine only causes the discharge of a certain 
number of hands, when the remuneration which 
pays them is abstracted by force. These hands 
and this remuneration would combine to produce 
wdiat it was impossible to produce before the in- 
vention ; whence it follows that the final result is 
an increase of advantages foi' equal labor. 

Who is the gainer by these additional advan- 
tages ? 

First, it is true, the capitalist, the inventor; 
the first who succeeds in using the machine ; and 



124 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

this is the reward of his genius and skill. In tins 
case, as we have just seen, he effects a saving of 
the expense of production, which, in whatever 
way it may be spent (and it always is spent), em- 
ploys exactly as many hands as the machine 
caused to be dismissed. 

But soon competition obliges him to lower his 
prices in proportion to the saving itself ; and then 
it is no longer the inventor who reaps the benefit 
of the invention — it is the purchaser of what is 
produced, the consumer, the public, including the 
workman ; in a word, mankind. 

And that which is not seen is, tlmt the saving 
thus procured for all consumers creates a fund 
whence wages may be supplied, and which re- 
places that which the machine has exhausted. 

Thus, to recur to the forementioned example, 
James obtains a profit by spending two dollars in 
wages. Thanks to his invention, the hand labor 
costs him only one dollar. So long as he sells the 
thing produced at the same price, he employs one 
workman less in producing this particular thing, 
and that is what is seen / but there is an addi- 
tional workman employed by the dollar which 
James has saved. This is that which is not seen. 

When, by the natural progress of things, James 
is obliged to lower the price of the thing pro- 
duced by one dollar, then he no longer realizes a 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 125 

Baving ; then he has no longer a dollar to dispose 
of to procure for the national labor a new produc- 
tion. But then another gainer takes his place, 
and this gainer is mankind. Whoever buys the 
thing he has produced, pays a dollar less, and 
necessarily adds this saving to the fund of wages ; 
and this, again, is what is not seen. 

Another solution, founded upon facts, has been 
given of this problem of machinery. 

It was said, machinery reduces the expense of 
production and lowers the price of the thing pro- 
duced. The reduction of the profit causes an in- 
crease of consumption, which necessitates an in- 
crease of production ; and, finally, the introduc- 
tion of as many workmen, or more, after the in- 
vention as were necessary before it. As a proof 
of this, printing, weaving, ^tc, are instanced. 

This demonstration is. not a scientific one. It 
would lead us to conclude, that if the consump- 
tion of the particular production of which we are 
speaking remains stationary, or nearly so, ma- 
chinery must injure labor. This is not the case. 

Suppose that in a certain country all the people 
wore hats. If by machinery, the price could be 
reduced half, it would not necessarily follow that 
the consumption would be doubled. 

Would you say that in this case a portion of 
the national labor had been paralyzed ? Yes, ac 



12 G THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

cording to the vulgar demonstration ; but, accord- 
ing to mine, ISTo ; for even if not a single hat 
more should be bought in the country, the entire 
fund of wages would not be the less secure. That 
which failed to go to the hat-making trade would 
be found to have gone to the economy realized 
by all the consumers, and would thence serve to 
pay for all the labor which the machine had ren- 
dered useless, and to excite a new development of 
all the trades. And thus it is that things go on. 
I have known newspapers to cost ten dollars per 
annum ; now we pay five : here is a saving of five 
dollars to the subscribers. It is not certain, or at 
least necessary, that the five dollars should take 
the direction of the journalist trade ; but it is 
certain, and necessary too, that if they do not take 
this direction they will take another. One makes 
use of them for buying in more newspapers; 
another, to get better living ; another better 
clothes ; another, better furniture. It is thus that 
the trades are bound together. They form a vast 
whole, whose different parts communicate in secret 
canals : what is saved by one profits all. It is very 
important for us to understand that savings never 
take place at the expense of labor and wages.^ 

* Charles Knight, in one of his economic publications, also 
discusses this same question, from the special standpoint of 
the English laborers who in 1830 broke up and destroyed 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 127 



IX.— CREDIT. 

In all times, but more especially of late years, 
attempts have been made to extend wealth by the 
extension of credit. 

IS'ow a few are always ready to proclaim that 

agricultural machinery, with the expectation that by so doing 
they would increase the opportunity and demand for labor. 

It can be fully demonstrated, he says, " that if the English 
laborers had been successful in their career — had broken all 
the more ingenious implements which have aided in rendering 
British agriculture the most perfect in the world — they would 
not have advanced one step in obtaining more employment 
or being better paid. 

" Thus, we will suppose that the farmer has yielded to this 
violence ; that tlie violence has had the effect which it was 
meant to have upon him ; and that he takes on all the hands 
which were out of employ to thrash and winnow, to cut 
chaff", to plant with the hands instead of with a drill, to do 
all the work in fact by the dearest mode instead of the cheap- 
est. But he employs just as many as are absolutely necessary, 
and no more, for getting his corn ready for market, and for 
preparing in a slovenly way for the seed-time. In a month or 
two the victorious destroyers discover that not a single hand 
the more of them is really employed. Why not ? There are 
no drainings going forward, the fences and ditches are neg- 
lected, the dung heap is not turned over, the marl is not fetched 
from the pit ; in fact all these labors are neglected which 
belong to a state of agricultural industry which is brought to 
perfection. The farmer has no funds to employ in such 
labors. He is paying a great deal more than he paid before 
for the same, or a less amount of work, because his laborers 



128 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 



in the extension and increasing credit is to be 
found the solution for the whole social problem. 

The only basis, alas ! of this solution is an op- 
tical delusion — if, indeed, an optical delusion can 
be called a basis at all. 

The first thing done is to confuse money with 

clioose to do certain labors witli rude tools instead of perfect 
ones. 

"We will imagine tliat this state of tilings continues till 
tlie next spring. All this while the price of grain has been 
rising ; many farmers have ceased to employ capital at all 
upon their land. The inventions which enabled them to 
make a living out of their business being destroyed, they 
have abandoned the business altogether. A day's work will 
no longer purchase as much bread as before. The horse, it 
might be found out, was as great an enemy as the drill- 
plow ; for as the liorse will do the field-work of six men, 
tliere must be six men employed, without doubt, instead of 
one liorse. But liow would the fact turn out ? If the farmer 
still went on, in spite of all tliese losses and crosses, he 
might employ men iu the place of horses, but not a single 
man more than the number that would work at the price of 
the keep of one horse. To do the work of eacli horse turned 
adrift, he would require six men ; but lie would only have 
about a shilling a day to divide between these six — the 
amount which the horse consumed. 

"As the year advanced, and the harvest approached, it 
would be discovered that not one-tenth of the land was sown; 
for although the plows were gone, because the horses were 
turned off, and there was plenty of labor for those who 
clioose to labor for its own sake, or at the price of horse 
labor, this amazing employment for human hands some- 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 129 

produce, then paper money (promises to pay 
money) with actual ; and from these two confusions 
it is pretended that a reality can be drawn. 

It is absolutely necessary in this question to 
forget coin, bills, and the other instruments by 
means of which productions pass from hand to 
hand. Our business is with the productions them- 
selves, which are the real objects of the loan ; for 
when a farmer borrows twenty dollars to buy a 
plow, it is not, in reality, the twenty dollars which 
are lent to him, but the plow ; and when a mer- 
chant borrows $20,000 to purchase a house, it is 
not the $20,000 which he owes, but the house. 



how would not quite answer the purpose. It has been cal- 
culated that the power of horses, oxen, etc., employed in 
husbandry in Great Britain is ten times the amount of 
human power. If human power insisted upon doing all the 
work with the worst tools, the certainty is that not even one- 
tenth of the land could be cultivated. Where then would 
all this madness end? In the starvation of the laborers 
themselves. Even if they were allowed to eat up all they had 
produced by such imperfect means, they would be just in 
the condition of other barbarous people, that were ignorant 
of the inventions that constitute the power of civilization. 
They would eat up the little corn which they raised them- 
selves, and find they had nothing to give in exchange for 
clothes, and coal, and candles, and soap, and sugar, and tea, 
and all the many comforts which those who are now the 
•worst ofE are not wholly deprived of." — Knowledge is 
Power. 



130 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

Money only appears for the sake of facilitating the 
arrangements between the parties. 

Peter may not be disposed to lend his plow, 
but James may be willing to lend his money. 
What does William do in this case ? He borrows 
money of James, and with this money he buys the 
plow of Peter. 

But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for 
the sake of the money itself ; money is only the 
medium by which to obtain possession of produc- 
tions. Now, it is impossible in any country to 
transmit from one person to another more produc- 
tions than that country contains. 

Whatever may be the amount of real money and 
of paper money, which is in circulation, the whole 
of the borrowers cannot receive more plows, 
houses, tools, and supplies of raw material, than 
the lenders altogether can f urnish ; f or we must 
take care not to forget that every borrower sup- 
poses a lender, and that what is once borrowed 
implies a loan. 

This granted, what advantage is there in insti- 
tutions of credit ? It is that they facilitate, between 
borrowers and lenders, the means of finding and 
treating with each other; but it is not in their 
power to cause an instantaneous increase of the 
things to be borrowed and lent. And yet they 
ought to be able to do so, if the aim of the reform- 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 131 

ers is to be attained, since they aspire to nothing 
less than to place plows, houses, tools, and pro- 
visions in the hands of all those who desire them. 

And how do they intend to effect this? 

By making the State security for the loan. 

Let us try and fathom the subject, for it contains 
S07nething which is seen^ and also something which 
is not seen, We must endeavor to look at both. 

We will suppose that there is but one plow in 
the world, and that two farmers apply for it. 

Peter is the possessor of the only plow which 
is to be had in the country ; John and James wish 
to borrow it. John, by his honesty, his property, 
and good reputation, offers security. He insjnres 
confidence y he has credit. James inspires little or 
no confidence. It naturally happens that Peter 
lends his plow to John. 

But now, according to the Socialist plan, the 
State interferes, and says to Peter : •' Lend your 
plow to James, I will be security for its return, 
and this security will be better than that of John, 
for he has no one to be responsible for him but 
himself; and I, although it is true that I have 
nothing, dispose of the fortune of the tax-payers, 
and it is with. their money that, in case of need, I 
shall pay you the principal and interest." Conse- 
quently, Peter lends his j)low to James ; this is 
whoi is seen. 



132 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

And the Socialists nib their hands, and say, 
*' See how well our plan has answered. Thanks 
to the intervention of the State, poor James has a 
plow. He will no longer be obliged to dig the 
ground ; he is on the road to make a fortune. It 
is a good thing for him, and an advantage to the 
nation as a whole." 

Indeed, it is no such a thing ; it is no advantage 
to the nation, for there is something behind which 
is not seen. 

It is not seen, that the plongh is in the hands of 
James, only because it is not in those of John. 

It is not seen, that if James farms instead of 
digging, John will be reduced to the necessity of 
digging instead of farming. 

That, consequently, what was considered an in- 
crease of loan, is nothing but a displacement of 
loan. Besides, it is not seen that this displacement 
implies two acts of deep injustice. 

It is an injustice to John, who after having de- 
served and obtained credit by his honesty and 
activity, sees himself robbed of it. 

It is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made 
to pay a debt which is no concern of theirs. 

"Will any one say, that Government offers the 
same facilities to John as it does to James? But 
as there is only one plow to be had, two cannot 
be lent. The argument always maintains that, 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 133 

thanks to the intervention of the State, more will 
be borrowed than there are things to be lent ; for 
the plow represents here the bulk of available 
capitals. 

It is true I have reduced the operation to the 
most simple expression of it ; but if you submit 
the most complicated Government institutions of. 
credit to the same test, you will be convinced that 
they can have but one result; viz., to displace 
credit, not to augment it. In one country, and in 
a given time, there is only a certain amount of 
capital available, and all are employed. In guaran- 
teeing payment on the part of the borrowers, the 
State may, indeed, increase the number of borrow- 
ers, and thus raise the rate of interest (always to 
the prejudice of the tax-payer), but it has no power 
to increase the number of lenders, and the aggre- 
gate amount of the loans. 

There is one conclusion, however, which I would 
not for the world be suspected of drawing. I say, 
that the law ought not to favor, artificially, the 
power of borrowing, but I do not say that it ought 
not to artificially interpose obstacles in the way of 
borrowing. If, in our system of borrowing on 
mortgages, or in any other way, there be obstacles 
to the difi'usion of the application of credit, let 
them be got rid of; nothing can be better or more 
just than this. But this is all which is consistent 



134 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

with liberty, and it is all that any who are worthy 
of the name of reformers will ask. 

X.— ALGERIA.* 

Here are four orators clisputiDg for the platform. 
First, all the four speak at once ; then they speak 
one after the other. What have they said ? Some 
very fine things, certainly, about the power and 
the grandeur of France ; about the necessity of 
sowing, if we would reap; about the brilliant fu- 
ture of our gigantic colony ; about the advantage 
of diverting to a distance the surplus of our popu- 
lation, &c., &c. Magnificent pieces of eloquence, 
and always adorned with this conclusion : — " Yote 
fifty millions, more or less, for making ports and 
roads in Algeria ; for sending emigrants thither ; 
for building houses and breaking up laud. By so 
doing, you will relieve the French workman, en- 
courage African labor, and give a stimulus to the 

* In this chapter M. Bastiat discusses a form of public ex- 
penditure in France growing out of tlie colonial policy, adopt- 
ed by that country, which has no exact counterpart in the 
fiscal disbursements of the United States. The principles 
involved in the expenditures of France in behalf of her col- 
ony in Algeria, are, however, the same which underlie the 
expenditures in every country for a great variety of what are 
caAled publio purposes ; and therefore, although the illustra 
tions may be foreign and local, the argument admits of uni • 
versal application. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 135 

commerce of Marseilles. It would be profitable 
overy way." 

Yes, it is all very true, if you take no account 
of the fifty milJions until the moment when the 
State begins to spend them ; if you only see where 
they go, and not whence they come ; if you look 
only at the good they are to do when they come 
out of the tax-gatherer's bag, and not at the harm 
which has been done, and the good which has been 
prevented, by putting them into it. ^es, at this 
limited point of view all is profit. The house 
which is built in Barbary is that which is seen j 
the harbor made in Barbary is that which is seen j 
the work caused in Barbary is what is seen / a 
few less hands in France is what is seen j a great 
stir with goods at Marseilles is still that which is 
seen. 

But, besides all this, there is something which 
is not seen. The fifty millions expended by the 
State cannot be spent, as they otherwise would 
have been, by the tax-payers. It is necessary to 
deduct, from all the good attributed to the public 
expenditure which has been effected, all the harm 
caused by the prevention of private expense, un- 
less we say that James would have done nothing 
with the francs that he had gained, and of which 
the tax had deprived him ; an absurd assertion, for 
if he took the trouble to earn it, it was because he 



136 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

expected the satisfaction of using it. He would 
have repaired the palings in his garden, which he 
cannot now do, and this is that which is not seen. 
He would have manured his field, which now he 
cannot do, and this i^ what is not seen. He would 
have added another story to his cottage, which he 
cannot do now, and this is what is not seen. He 
might have increased the number of his tools, 
which he cannot do now, and this is what is not 
seen. He would have been better fed, better 
clothed, have given a better education to his chil- 
dren, and increased his daughter's marriage por- 
tion ; this is what is not seen. He would have 
become a member of the Mutual Assistance Society, 
but now he cannot ; this is what is not seen. On 
one hand, are the enjoyments of which he has 
been deprived, and the means of action which 
have been destroyed in his hands ; on the other, 
are the labor of the drainer, the carj)enter, the 
smith, the tailor, the village schoolmaster, which 
he would have encouraged, and which are now pre- 
vented — all this is what is not seen. 

Much is hoped from the future prosperity of 
Algeria ; be it so. But the drain to which France 
is being subjected ought not to be kept entirely out 
of sight. The commerce of Marseilles is pointed 
out to me; but if this is to be brought about by 
means of taxation, I shall always show that an 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 137 

equal commerce is destroyed thereby in other parts 
of the country. It is said, " There is an emigrant 
transported into Barbary ; this is a relief to the 
population which remains in the country." I 
answer, ^' How can that be, if, in transporting this 
emigrant to Algiers, you also transport two or 
three times the capital which would have served 
to maintain him in France ? " * 

The only object I have in view is to make it 
evident to the reader, that in every public expense, 
behind the apparent benefit, there is an evil which 
it is not so easy to discern. As far as in me lies, 
I would make him form a habit of seeing both, 
and takino^ account of both. 

When a public expense is proposed, it ought to 
be examined in itself, separately from the pretend- 
ed encouragement of labor which results from it, 
for this encouragement is a delusion. Whatever 
is done in this way at the public expense, private 
expense would have done all the same; therefore, 
the interest of labor is always out of the question. 

It is not the object of this treatise to criticise 



* The Minister of War has lately asserted that every indi- 
vidual transported to Algeria has cost the State 8,000 francs. 
Now it is certain that these poor creatures could have lived 
very well in France on a capital of 4,000 francs. I ask, how 
the French population is relieved, when it is deprived of a 
man, and of the means of subsistence of two men ? 



138 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

the intrinsic merit of the puhlic expenditure as 
applied to Algeria, but I cannot withhold a gen- 
eral observation. It is, that the presumption is 
always unfavorable to expenditures which are paid 
by money raised by taxation. Why? For this 
reason : — First, justice always suffers from it in 
some degree. Since James had labored to gain 
his franc, in the hope of receiving a gratification 
from it, it is to be regretted that the national treas- 
ury should interpose, and take from James this 
gratification, to bestow it npon another. Certainl}^, 
it behoves the treasury, or those who regulate it, 
to give good reasons for this. It has been shown 
that the State gives a very provokiug one, when 
it says, '' With this franc I shall employ w^ork- 
men ; " for James (as soon as he sees it) will be 
sure to answer, " It is all very fine, but with this 
franc I might employ them myself." 

Apart from this reason, others present them- 
selves without disguise, by which the debate be- 
tween the treasury and poor James becomes much 
simplified. If the State says to him, '* I take your 
franc to pay the police officer w^ho saves you the 
trouble of providing for your own personal safety ; 
for paving the street which you are passing through 
every day ; for paying the magistrate who causes 
your property and your liberty to be respected ; 
to maintain the soldier who maintains our fron 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 139 

tiers," — James, unless I am much, mistaken, will 
pay for all this without hesitation. But if the 
State were to say to him, ^'I take this franc that 
I may give you a little prize in case you cultivate 
your field well; or that I may teach your son 
something that you have no wish that he should 
learn ; or that the Minister may add another to 
his score of dishes at dinner; I take it to build a 
cottage in Algeria, in which case I must take 
another franc every year to keep an emigrant in 
it, and another hundred to maintain a soldier to 
guard this emigrant, and another franc to main- 
tain a general to guard this soldier," &c., &c., — ^I 
think I hear poor James exclaim, '' This system 
of law is very much like a system of cheat ! " The 
State foresees the objection, and what does it do? 
It jumbles all things together, and brings forward 
just that provoking reason which ought to have 
nothing whatever to do with the question. It 
talks of the effect of this expenditure upon labor ; 
it points to the cook and purveyor of the Minister; 
it shows an emigrant, a soldier, and a general, liv- 
ing upon the tranc ; it shows, in fact, luhat is seen^ 
and if James has not learned to take into the ac- 
count what is not seen^ James will be duped. And 
this is why I want to do all I can to impress it 
upon his mind, by repeatingit over and over again. 
As the public expenditures displace labor with' 



140 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

out increasing it, a second serious presumption 
presents itself against tliein. To displace labor is 
to displace laborers, and to disturb the natural 
laws wliicli regulate the distribution of the popu- 
lation over the country. If 50,000,000 francs are 
allowed to remain in the possession of the tax-pay- 
ers, since the tax-payers are everywhere, they en- 
courage labor in the 40,000 parishes in T'rance. 
They act like a natural tie, which keeps every one 
upon his native soil ; they distribute themselves 
amongst all imaginable laborers and trades. If the 
State, by drawing off these 50,000,000 francs from 
the citizens, accumulates them, and expends them 
on some given point, it attracts to this point a pro- 
portional quantity of displaced labor, a correspond- 
ing number of laborers, belonging to other parts ; 
a fluctuating population, which is out of its place, 
and possibly dangerous when the fund is exhaust- 
ed, i^ow here is the consequence (and this con- 
firms all I have said) : this feverish activity is, as 
it were, forced into a narrow space; it attracts 
the attention of all ; it is what is seen. The people 
applaud ; they are astonished at the beauty and 
facility of the plan, and expect to have it contin- 
ued and extended. That which they do not see is, 
that an equal quantity of labor, which would pro- 
bably be more valuable, has been paralyzed over 
the rest of France. 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN, 141 



XL— FRUGALITY AND LUXURY. 

It is not only in tlie public expenditure that 
what is seen eclipses what is not seen. Setting 
aside what relates to political economy, this phe- 
nomenon leads to false reasoning. It causes na- 
tions to consider their moral and their material 
interests as contradictory to each other. What 
can be more discouraging or more dismal ? 

For instance, there is not a father of a family 
who does not think it his duty to teach his chil- 
dren order, system, the habits of carefulness, of 
economy, and of moderation in spending money. 

There is no religion which does not thunder 
against pomp and luxury. This is as it should be ; 
but, on the other hand, how frequently do we hear 
the following remarks : — 

" To hoard is to drain the veins of the people.'' 

" The luxury of the great is the opportunity of 
the little." 

" Prodigals ruin themselves, but they enrich the 
State." 

"It is the sLiperfluity of the rich which makes 
bread for the poor." 

Here, certainly, is a striking contradiction be- 
tween the moral and the social idea. How many 
eminent spirits, after having moralized over these 
assertions, repose in peace. It is a thing I never 



142 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

could understand, for it seems to me that nothing 
can be more distressing than to discover two oppo- 
site tendencies in mankind. Why, it comes to 
degradation at each of the extremes : economy 
brings it to misery; prodigality phmges it into 
moral degradation. Happily, these vulgar maxims 
exhibit economy and luxury in a false light, taking 
account, as they do, of those immediate conse- 
quences which are seen, and not of the remote 
ones, which are not seen. Let us see if we can 
rectif^^ this incomplete view of the case. 

Joseph Spendall and Jacob Saveall, after receiv- 
ing their parental inheritance, have each an income 
of $10,000. Joseph Spendall practices the fash- 
ionable philanthropy. He is what is called a 
squanderer of money. He renew^s his furniture 
several times a year ; changes his equipages every 
month. People talk of his ingenious contrivances 
to bring them sooner to an end : in short, he sur- 
passes the fast personages who figure in the modern 
novels. 

Thus everybody is singing his praises. It is, 
" Tell us about Joseph Spendall for ever ! He is 
the benefactor of the workman ; a blessing to the 
people. It is true, he revels in dissipation ; he 
splashes the passers-by ; his own dignity and that 
of human nature are lowered a little ; but what 
of that ? He does good with his fortune, if not 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 143 

with 111 111 self. He causes money to circulate ; he 
always sends the tradespeople away satisfied. Is 
not money made round that it may roll ? " 

Jacob has adopted a very different plan of life. 
If he is not an egotist, he is, at any rate, an indi- 
viduolist, for he considers expense, seeks only 
moderate and reasonable enjoyments, thinks of 
his children's prospects, and, in fact, he econo- 
mizes. 

And what do people say of him ? *' What is 
the good of a rich fellow like him ? He is an old 
skinflint." 

There is something dignified in the simplicity 
of his life ; and. he is humane, too, and benevolent, 
and generous, but he calculates. He does not 
spend his income; his house is neither brilliant 
nor bustling. What good does he do to the jew- 
eler, the carriage-makers, the horse-dealers, and 
confectioners ? 

These opinions, which are antagonistic to the 
practice of prudence, frugality, and morality, are 
founded on what strikes the eye, namely, the in- 
fluence of the expenditures of the prodigal ; while 
little or no account is taken of that which does 
not ostentatiously attract attention, namelj^, the 
equal or larger expenditure of the economist. 

But things have been so admirably arranged by 
the Divine inventor of social order, that in this, 



144 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AKD 

as in everything else, political economy and mor* 
ality, far from clashing, agree ; and the wisdom 
of Jacob is not only more dignified, bnt still more 
'profitable, than the ^oWy of Joseph. And when I 
say profitable, I do not mean only profitable to 
Jacob, or even to society in general, but more pro- 
fitable to the workmen themselves — to the trade 
of the time. 

To prove it, it is only necessary to turn the 
mind's eye to those hidden consequences of human 
actions which the bodily eye does not see. 

Yes, the prodigality of Joseph has visible efiPects 
in every point of view. Everybody can see his 
fine house, his elegant carriage, his superb paint- 
ings, his fleet yacht, and his costly attire. Every 
one knows that his horses run upon the turf. The 
dinners which he gives attract the attention of the 
crowds on the avenues ; and it is said, " That is a 
generous man ; far from saving his income, he is 
YQvj likely breaking into his capital." That is 
what is seen. 

It is not so easy to see, with regard to the inter- 
est of workers, what becomes of the income of 
Saveall. If we were to trace it carefully, however, 
we should see that the whole of it, down to the 
last farthing, affords work to the laborers as cer- 
tainly as the fortune of Spendall. Only there is 
this difference : the wanton extravagance of Joseph 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 145 

is doomed to be constantly decreasing, and to come 
to an end without fail ; whilst the wise expendi- 
ture of Jacob will go on increasing from year to 
year. And if this is the case, then, most assur- 
edly^, the public interest will be in unison with 
morality. 

Joseph spends upon himself and his household 
$5,000 a year. If that is not sufficient to con- 
tent him, he does not deserve to be called a 
w^ise man. He is touched by the miseries which 
oppress the poorer classes ; he thinks he is bound 
in conscience to afford them some relief, and 
therefore he devotes $2,000 to acts of benevolence. 
Amongst the merchants, the manufacturers, and 
the agriculturists he has friends who are suffering 
under temporary difficulties; he makes himself 
acquainted with their situation, that he may assist 
them with prudence and efficiency, and to this 
work he devotes $2,000 more. Then he does 
not forget that he has daughters to portion, and 
sons for whose prospects it is his dut}^ to provide, 
and therefore he considers it a duty to lay by and 
put out to interest $2,000 every year. 

The following is a list of his expenses : — 

1st. Personal expenses $5,000 

2d. Benevolent objects 2,000 

3d. Offices of friendship 2,000 

4:th. Saving 2,000 

7 



146 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

Let US examine each of these items, and we 
shall see that not a single farthing escapes the na- 
tional labor. 

1st. Personal expenses. — These, as far as work- 
people and tradesmen are concerned, have pre- 
cisely the same effect as an eqnal sum spent by 
Spendall. This is self-evident, therefore we shall 
saj no more about it. 

2d. Benevolent objects.— The $2,000 devoted 
to this purpose benefit trade in an equal degree ; 
they reach the butcher, the baker, the tailor, and 
the carpenter. The only thing is, that the bread, 
the meat, and the clothing are not used by Jacob, 
but by those whom he has made his substitutes. 
JSTow, this simple substitution of one consumer for 
another in no way affects trade in general. It is 
all one whether Jacob spends a dollar or desires 
some unfortunate person to spend it instead. 

3d. Offices of friendship. — The friend to whom 
Saveall lends or gives $3,000 does not receive them 
to bury them ; that would be against the hypo- 
thesis. He uses them to pay for goods, or to 
discharge debts. In the first case, trade is encour- 
aged. Will any one pretend to say that it gains 
more by Joseph's purchase of a thoroughbred 
horse for $2,000, than by the purchase of $2,000 
worth of stuffs by Jacob or his friend ? For if 
this sum serves to pay a debt, a third person ap- 



THAT WmCH IS NOT SEEN. 147 

pears, viz., tlie creditor, wlio will certainly employ 
them upon something in his trade, his household, 
or his farm. He forms another medium between 
Saveall and the workmen. The names only are 
changed, the expense remains, and also the en- 
courasfement to trade. 

4:th. Saving. — Tliere remains now the $2,000 
saved ; and it is here, as regards the encourage- 
ment to the arts, to trade, labor, and the workmen, 
that Spendall appears far superior to Saveall, 
although, in a moral point of view, Jacob shows 
himself in some degree superior to Joseph. 

I can never look at these apparent contradictions 
between the great laws of nature without a feeling 
of physical uneasiness which amounts to suffering. 
Were mankind reduced to the necessity of choos- 
ing between two parties, one of whom injures his 
interest, and the other his conscience, we should 
have nothing to hope from the future. Happily 
this is not the case ; and to see Jacob attain a po- 
sition of economical superiority, as well as one of 
moral superiority, it is sufficient to fall back upon 
this consoling maxim, wliich is none the less true 
from having a paradoxical appearance, *' To save 
is to spend." 

For what is Jacob's object in saving $2,000 ? 
Is it to bury them in his garden ? No, certainly ; 
he intends to increase his capital and his income; 



148 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

consequently, this money, instead of being era- 
ployed upon his own personal gratification, is used 
for buying land,,a house, &c., or it is placed in 
the hands of a merchant or a banker. Follow the 
progress of this money in any one of these cases, 
and you will be convinced that through the me- 
dium of vendors or lenders, it is encouraging 
labor quite as certainly as if Saveall, following 
the example of Spendall, had exchanged it for 
furniture, jewels, and horses. 

For v^dien Jacob buys lands or bonds for $2,000, 
he is determined by the consideration that he does 
not want to spend this money. This is whj you 
complain of him. 

But, at the same time, the man who sells the 
land or the bonds, is determined by the considera- 
tion that he does want to spend the $2,000 in some 
way; so that the money is spent in any case, either 
by Jacob or by others in his stead. 

With respect to the working class, to the encour- 
agement of labor, there is only «ne difference 
between the conduct of Jacob and that of Joseph. 
Joseph spends the money himself, and around 
him, and therefore the effect is seen. Jacob, 
spending it partly through intermediate parties, 
and at a distance, the effect is not seen. But, in 
fact, those who know how to attribute effects to 
their proper causes, will perceive, that what is not 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN". 149 

seen is as certain as what is seen. This is proved 
bj the fact, that in both cases the money circulates, 
and does not lie in the iron chest of the wise man, 
any more than it does in that of the spendthrift. 
It is, therefore, not correct to say that economy 
does actual harm to trade ; as described above, it is 
equally beneficial with luxury. 

But how far superior is it, if, instead of confin- 
ing our thoughts to the present moment, we let 
them embrace a longer period ! 

Ten years pass away. What is become of 
Joseph and his fortune and his great popularity 1 
Joseph is ruined. Instead of spending $10,000 
every year in society, he is, perhaps, a burden to 
it. In any case, he is no longer the delight of 
shopkeepers ; he is no longer the patron of the 
arts and of trade ; he is no longer of any use to 
the workmen, nor are his successors, whom he 
has brought to want. 

At the end of the same ten years Jacob not 
only continues to throw his income into circula- 
tion, but he adds an increasing sum from year to 
year to his expenses. He enlarges the national 
capital, that is, the fund which supplies wages, 
and as it is upon the extent of this fund that the 
demand for laborers depends, he assists in pro- 
gressively increasing the remuneration of the 
working class ; and if he dies, he leaves children 



150 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

wliom he has taught to succeed him in this work 
of progress and civilization. 

In a moral point of view, the superiority of 
frugality over luxury is indisputable. It is con- 
soling to think that it is so in political economy, 
to every one who, not confining his views to the 
immediate effects of phenomena, knows how to 
extend his investigations to their final effects. 

XII.— HE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO LABOR HAS A 
RIGHT TO THE PROFIT OF LABOR. 

*' Brethren, you must club together to find me 
work at your own price." This is the right to 
work; i.e.^ elementary socialism of the first de- 
gree. 

" Brethren, you must club together to find me 
work at my own price." This is the right to pro- 
fit ; i.e.^ refined socialism, or socialism of the 
second degree. 

Both of these assumptions live upon such of 
their effects as are seen. They will die by means 
of those effects which are not seen. 

That which is see7i is the labor and the profit 
excited by social combination. That which is not 
seen is the labor and the profit to w^hich this same 
combination would give rise, if it were left to the 
tax-payers. 

In France, in . 1848, the right to labor for a 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 151 

moment showed two faces. This was sufficient 
to ruin it in public opinion. 

One of these faces was called national worh- 
shops. The other was a tax known by the name 
of forty-five centimes. Millions of francs went 
daily from the national treasury to the national 
workshops. This was the fair side of the medal. 

And this is the reverse. If millions are taken 
out of a cash-box, they must first have been put 
into it. This is why the organizers of the right 
to public labor apply to the tax-payers. 

]^ow, the peasants said : " I must pay forty-five 
centimes; then I must deprive myself of some 
clothing. I cannot manure my field ; I cannot 
repair my house." 

And the country workmen said : " As our towns- 
man deprives himself of some clothing, there will 
be less work for the tailor ; as he does not im- 
prove his field, there will be less work for the 
drainer ; as he does not repair his house, there 
will be less work for the carpenter and mason." 

It was then proved that two kinds of meal 
cannot come out of one sack, and that the work 
furnished by the Grovernment was done at the ex- 
pense of labor, paid for by the tax-payer. This 
was the termination of the right to labor, which 
showed itself as much a chimera as an injustice. 
And yet the right to profit, which is only an ex- 



152 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND 

aggeration of the right to labor, is still alive and 
flourishing. 

Ought not the protectionist to blush at the part 
lie would make society play ? 

He says to it : " Yon must give me work, and, 
more than that, lucrative work. I have foolishly 
fixed upon a trade by which I lose ten per cent. 
If you impose a tax of twenty per cent, npon my 
countrymen, and give it to me, I shall be a gainer 
instead of a loser, l^ow, profit is my right ; you 
owe it me." l^ow, any society which would 
listen to this sophist, burden itself with taxes to 
satisfy him, and not perceive that the loss to 
wdiich any trade is exposed is no less a loss when 
others are forced to make up for it, — such a 
society, 1 say, would deserve the burden infiicted 
upon it. 

Thus we learn by the numerous subjects which 
I have treated, that, to be ignorant of political 
economy is to allow ourselves to be misled by the 
immediate effect of a phenomenon ; to be ac- 
quainted with it is to embrace in thought and in 
forethought the whole compass of effects. 

I might subject a host of other questions to the 
same test ; but I shrink from the monotony of a 
constantly uniform demonstration, and I conclude 
by applying to political economy what Chateau- 
briand says of history : — 



THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 153 

" There are," lie says, *' two consequences in 
liistory ; an immediate one, which is instantly re- 
cognized, and one in the distance, which is not at 
first perceived. These consequences often contra- 
dict each other ; the former are the results of onr 
own limited wisdom ; the latter, those of that wis- 
dom wdiich endures. The providential event ap- 
pears after the human event. God rises up be- 
hind men. Deny, if you will, the supreme 
counsel ; disown its action ; dispute about words; 
designate by the term force of circumstances, or 
reason, what the vulgar call Providence ; but look 
to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will 
see that it has always produced the contrary of 
what was expected from it, if it was not estab- 
lished at first upon morality and justice." — 
Chateaubriand^ s Posthumous Memoirs, 



154 GOYEENMENT. 



GOYEE:t^MEKT. 



I WISH some one would offer a prize for a good, 
simple, and intelligent definition of the word 
" Government." 

What an immense service it would confer on 
society ! 

The Government! what is it? where is it? 
what does it do ? what ought it to do ? All we 
know is, that it is a mysterious personage ; and, 
assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tor- 
mented, the most overwhelmed, the most ad- 
mired, the most accused, the most invoked, and 
the most provoked of any personage in the 
world. 

I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader, 
but I would stake ten to one that for six months 
he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he 
is looking to Government for the realization of 
them. 

And should the reader happen to be a lady, I 
have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of 
seeing all the evils of suffering humanity reme- 



GOYEENMENT. 155 

died, and that she thinks this might easily be 
done, if Government would only undertake it. 

But, alas ! that poor unfortunate personage, 
like Figaro, knows not to whom to listen, nor 
where to turn. The hundred thousand mouths of 
the press and of the platform cry out all at once : — 

" Organize labor and workmen. 

" Repress insolence and the tyranny of capital. 

" Make experiments upon manure and eggs. 

" Cover the country with railways. 

" Irrigate the plains. 

" Plant the hills. 

'' Make model farms. 

" Found social workshops. 

" I^urture children. 

" Instruct the youth. 

" Assist the aged. 

"Send the inhabitants of towns into the 
country. 

" Equalize the profits of all trades. 

" Lend money without interest to all who wish 
to borrow. 

" Emancipate oppressed people everywhere. 

" Rear and perfect the saddle-horse. 

"Encourage the arts, and provide us with 
musicians, painters, and architects. 

" Restrict commerce, and at the same time 
create a merchant navy. 



156 GOVERNMENT. 

" Discover truth, and put a grain of reason 
into our heads. The mission of Government is 
to enh'ghten to develop, to extend, to fortify, to 
spiritualize, and to sanctifj^ the soul of the peo- 
ple." 

"Do have a little patience, gentlemen,'' says 
Government, in a beseeching tone. " I will do 
what I can to satisfy you, but for this I must have 
resources. I have been preparing plans for five 
or six taxes, which are quite new, and not at all 
oppressive. You will see how willingly people 
will pay them." 

Then comes a great exclamation : — " 'No ! in- 
deed ! where is the merit of doing a thing with 
resources ? Why, it does not deserve the name 
of a Government ! So far from loading us with 
fresh taxes, we would have you withdraw the old 
ones. You ought to suppress 

" The tobacco tax. 

" The tax on liquors. 

" The tax on letters. 

" Custom-house duties. 

" Patents." 

In the midst of this tumult, and now that the 
country has again and again changed the admin- 
istration, for not having satisfied all its demands, 
I wanted to show that they were contradictory. 
But what could I have been thinking about ? 



GOVEBNMENT. 157 

Could I not keep this unfortunate observation to 
myself? 

I have lost my character forever ! I am looked 
upon as a man without heart and without feeling 
— a dry philosopher, an individualist, a plebeian — ■ 
in a word, an economist of the practical school. 
But, pardon me, sublime writers, who stop at noth- 
ing, not even at contradictions. I am wrong, 
without a doubt, and I would willingly retract. 
I should be glad enough, yon may be sure, if you 
had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaus- 
tible being, calling itself the Government, which 
has bread for all mouths, work for all hands, capi- 
tal for all enterprises, credit for all projects, oil 
for all wounds, balm for all sufferings, advice for 
all perplexities, solutions for all doubts, truths for 
all intellects, diversions for all who want them, 
milk for infancy, and wine for old age — which can 
provide for all our wants, satisfy all our curiosity, 
correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and 
exempt us henceforth from the necessity for fore- 
sight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, 
order, economy, temperance, and activity. 

What reason could I have for not desiring to 
see such a discovery made ? Indeed, the more I 
reflect upon it, the more do I see that nothing 
could be more convenient than that we should all 
of us have within our reach an inexhaustible 



158 GOVERNMENT. 

source of wealth and enlightenment — a universal 
ph3^sician, an unlimited treasure, and an infallible 
counselor, such as you describe Government to 
be. Therefore it is that I want to have it pointed 
out and defined, and that a prize should be of- 
fered to the first discoverer of the phoenix. For 
no one would think of asserting that this precious 
discovery has yet been made, since up to this time 
everything presenting itself under the name of 
the Government has at some time been over- 
turned by the people, precisely because it does 
not fulfill the rather contradictory conditions of 
the programme. 

I will venture to say that I fear we are, in this 
respect, the duj^es of one of the strangest illusions 
which have ever taken possession of the human 
mind. 

Man recoils from trouble — from suffering ; and 
yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of 
privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. 
He has to choose, then, between these two evils. 
"What means can he adopt to avoid both ? There 
remains now, and there will remain, only one 
way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Sucli 
a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the 
satisfaction from preserving their natural propor- 
tion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot 
of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that 



GOVEKNMENT. 159 

of another. This is the origin of slavery and of 
plunder, whatever its form may be — whether that 
of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, 
&c. — monstrous abuses, but consistent with the 
thought which has given them birth. Oppression 
should be detested and resisted — it can hardly be 
called absurd. 

Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven ! and, on 
the other hand, our disposition to defend our prop- 
erty prevents direct and open plunder from being 
easy. 

One thing, however, remains — it is the original 
inclination which exists in all men to divide the 
lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble 
upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for them- 
selves. It remains to be shown under what new 
form this sad tendency is manifesting itself. 

The oppressor no longer acts directly and with 
his own powers upon his victim. ]N"o, our con- 
science has become too sensitive for that. The 
tyrant and his victim are still present, but there 
is an intermediate person between them, which is 
the Government — that is, the Law itself. What 
can be better calculated to silence our scruples, 
and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to over- 
come all resistance ? We all, therefore, put in our 
claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to 
Government. We say to it, "I am dissatisfied at 



160 GOYEENMENT. 

the proportion between my labor and my enjoy- 
ments. I should like, for the sake of restoring 
the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the pos- 
sessions of others. But this would be dangerous. 
Could not you facilitate the thing for me ? Could 
you not find me a good place ? or check the indus- 
try of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me 
gratuitously some capital, which you may take 
from its possessor ? Could you not bring up my 
children at the public expense ? or grant me some 
prizes ? or secure me a competence when I have 
attained my fiftieth year ? By this means I shall 
gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law 
will have acted for me, and I shall have all the 
advantages of plunder, without its risk or its dis- 
grace ! " 

As it is certain, on the one hand, that w^e are 
all making some similar request to the Govern- 
ment ; and as, on the other, it is proved that Gov- 
ernment cannot satisfy one party without adding 
to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another 
definition of the word Government I feel author- 
ized to give my own. Who knows but it may 
obtain the prize ? Here it is : 

Government is the great fiction through which 
everybody endeavors to live at the expense of every- 
hody else. 

For now, as formerly, every one is, more oi 



GOYERNMENT. 161 

less, for profiting by the labors of others. 'No one 
would dare to profess sucli a sentiment; he even 
hides it from himself ; and then what is done ? A 
medium is thought of; Government isa]3plied to, 
and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, 
" You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take 
from the public, and we will partake." Alas ! 
Government is only too much disposed to follow 
this diabolical advice, for it is composed of minis- 
ters and officials — of men, in short, who, like all 
other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize 
every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their 
wealth and influence. Government is not slow to 
perceive the advantages it may derive from the 
part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is 
glad to be the judge and the master of the desti- 
nies of all ; it will take much, for then a large 
share will remain for itself; it will multiply the 
number of its agents ; it will enlarge the circle of 
its privileges ; it will end by appropriating a ruin- 
ous proportion. 

But the most remarkable part of it is the aston- 
ishing blindnesss of the public through it all. 
When successful soldiers used to reduce the van- 
quished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they 
were not absurd. Their object, like ours, was to 
live at other people's expense, and they did not 
fail to do so. What are we to think of a people 



162 GOYERNMENT. 

who never seem to suspect that reciproGal plunder 
is no less plunder because it is reciprocal ; that it 
is no less criminal because it is executed legally 
and with order ; that it adds nothing to the public 
good; that it diminishes it, just in proportion to 
the cost of the expensive medium which we call 
the Government? 

And it is this great chimera which the French 
nation, for example, placed in 1848, for the edifi- 
cation of the people, as a frontispiece to its Con- 
stitution. The following is the beginning of the 
preamble to this Constitution : — 

" France has constituted itself a republic for 
the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever- 
increasing degree of morality, enlightment, and 
well-being." 

Thus it is France, or an abstraction, which is 
to raise the French to morality, well-being, &c. 
Is it not by yielding to this strange delusion that 
we are led to expect everything from an energy 
not our own? Is it not giving out that there is, 
independently of the French, a virtuous, enlight- 
ened, and rich being, who can and will bestow 
upon them its benefits ? Is not this supposing, 
and certainly very gratuitously, that there are 
between France and the French — between the 
simple, abridged, and abstract denomination of all 
the individualities, and these individualities them- 



GOVERNMENT. 163 

selves — ^relations as of father to son, tutor to liis pu- 
pil, professor to his scholar ? I know it is often said, 
metaphorically, " the country is a tender mother." 
But to show the inanity of such a constitutional 
proposition, it is only needed to show that it may 
be reversed, not only without inconvenience, but 
even with advantage. Would it be less exact to say : 

*' The French have constituted themselves a Re- 
public to raise France to an ever-increasing degree 
of morality, enlightenment, and well-being." 

1^0 w, where is the value of an axiom where the 
subject and the attribute may change places with- 
out inconvenience ? Everybody understands what 
is meant by this : " The mother will feed the 
child." But it would be ridiculous to say, '' The 
child will feed the mother." 

The Americans formed another idea of the rela- 
tions of the citizens with the Government when 
they placed these simple words at the head of their 
Constitution : — 

" We, the people of the United States, for the 
purpose of forming a more perfect union, of estab- 
lishing justice, of securing interior tranquillity, of 
providing for our common defense, of increasing 
ihe general well-being, and of securing the benefits 
of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, de- 
cree," &c. 

Here there is no chimerical creation, no ah- 



164 GOVERNMENT. 

straction, from whicli the citizens ma}'^ demand 
everything. They expect nothing except from 
themselves and their own energy. 

If I may be permitted to criticise the first words 
of the French Constitution of 1848, I would re- 
mark, that w4iat I compLiin of is something more 
than a mere metaphysical subtilty, as might seem 
at first sight. 

I contend that this personification of Govern- 
ment has been, in past times, and will be hereafter, 
a fertile source of calamities and revolutions. 

There is the public on one side, Government on 
the other, considered as two distinct beings ; the 
latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the 
former having the right to claim from the latter, 
all imaginable human benefits. What will be the 
consequence ? 

In fact, Government is not maimed, and cannot 
be so. It has two hands — one to receive and the 
other to give ; in other words, it has a rough hand 
and a smooth one. The activity of the second is 
necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. 
Strictly, Government may take and not restore. 
This is evident, and may be explained by the por- 
ous and absorbing nature of its hands, which 
always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of 
what they touch. But the thing that never was 
seen, and never wiU be seen or conceived, is, that 



GOVERNMENT. 165 

Government can restore more to the public than 
it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for 
Its to appear before it in the humble attitude of 
beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer 
a particular benefit upon any one of the individu- 
alities which constitute the community, without 
inflicting a greater injury upon the community as 
a whole. 

Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma. 

If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it 
is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If 
it endeavors to grant them, it is obliged to load 
the people with fresh taxes — to do more harm than 
good, and to bring upon itself from another quar- 
ter the general displeasure. 

Thus, the public has two hopes, and Govern- 
ment makes two promises — many benefits and no 
taxes. Hopes and promises, which, being contra- 
dictory, can never be realized. 

Now, is not this the cause of all our revolutions ? 
For, between the Government, which lavishes 
promises which it is impossible to perform, and 
the public, which has conceived hopes which can 
never be realized, two classes of men interpose^ 
the ambitious and the Utopians. It is circum- 
stances which give these their cue. It is enough if 
these vassals of popularity cry out to the people : 
** The authorities are deceiving you ; if we were 



166 GOYEENMENT. 

in tlieir place, we would load you with benefits 
and exempt you from taxes." 

And the people believe, and the people hope, 
and the people make a revolution ! 

ISTo sooner are their friends at the head of affairs, 
than they are called upon to redeem their pledge. 
" Give us work, bread, assistance, credit, instruc- 
tion, more money," say the people ; " and witlial 
deliver us, as you promised, from the demands of 
the tax-gatherers." 

The new Governmsnt is no less eml^arrassed 
tliau the former one, for it soon finds tliat it is 
much more easy to promise than to perform. It 
tries to gain time, for this is necessary for matur- 
ing its vast projects. At first, it makes a few 
timid attempts. On one hand it institutes a little 
elementary instruction ; on the other, it makes a 
little reduction in some taxes. But the contradic- 
tion is forever starting up before it ; if it would 
be philantliropic, it must attend to its exchequer; 
if It neglects its exchequer, it must abstain from 
being philanthropic. 

These two promises are for ever clashing with 
each other; it cannot be otherwise. To live upon 
credit, which is the same as exhausting the future, 
is certainly a present means of reconciling them: 
an attempt is made to do a little good now, at the 
expense of a great deal of harm in future. But 



GOVERNMENT. 167 

such proceedings call forth the spectre of bank- 
ruptcy, which puts an end to credit. What is to 
be done then? Why, then, the new Government 
takes a bold step ; it unites all its forces in order 
to maintain itself ; it smothers opinion, has recourse 
to arbitrary measures, ridicules its former maxims, 
declares that it is impossible to conduct the ad- 
ministration except at the risk of being unpopular ; 
in short, it proclaims itself governmental. And it 
is here that other candidates for popularity are 
waiting for it. They exhibit the same illusion, 
pass by the same way, obtain the same success, 
and are soon swallowed up in the same gulf. 

We had arrived at this point, in France, in Feb- 
ruary, 1849. "^ At this time the illusion which is 
the subject of this article had made more way than 
at any former period in the ideas of the French 
people, in connection with Socialist doctrines. 
They expected, more firmly than ever, that Gov- 
ernment^ under a republican form, would open in 
grand style the source of benefits and close that of 
taxation. "We have often been deceived," said 
the people ; "but we will see to it ourselves this 
time, and take care not to be deceived again % " 

What could the Provisional Government do ? 
Alas ! just that which always is done in similar 

* Tliis was written in 1849 



168 GOVEENMENT. 

circumstances — make promises, and gain time. It 
did so, of course ; and to give its promises more 
weight, it announced them publicly thus : — " In- 
crease of prosperity, diminution of labor, assistance, 
credit, gratuitous instruction, agricultural colonies, 
cultivation of waste land, and, at the same time, 
reduction of the tax on salt, liquor, letters, meat ; 
all this shall be granted when the I^ational As- 
sembly meets." 

The National Assembly meets, and, as it is im- 
possible to realize two contradictory things, its 
task, its sad task, is to withdraw, as gently as pos- 
sible, one after the other, all the decrees of the 
Provisional Government. However, in order 
somewhat to mitigate the cruelty of the deception, 
it is found necessary to negotiate a little. Certain 
engagements are fulfilled, others are, in a measure, 
begun, and therefore the new administration is 
compelled to contrive some new taxes. 

Now, I transport myself, in thought, to a period 
a few months hence, and ask myself, with sorrow- 
ful forebodings, what will come to pass when the 
agents of the new Government go into the coun- 
try to collect new taxes upon legacies, revenues, 
and the profits of agricultural traffic? It is to be 
hoped that my presentiments may not be verified, 
but I foresee a difiacult part for the candidates for 
popularity to play. 



GOVEKNMENT. 169 

Read the last manifesto of one of tlie political 
parties — which they issued on the occasion of the 
election of the President. It is rather long, but 
at lencrth it concludes with these w^ords : — " Govern- 
ment ought to give a great deal to the people^ and 
talce little from themP It is always the same tac- 
tics, or, rather, the same mistake. 

" Government is bound to give gratnitons in- 
struction and education to all the citizens." 

It is bound to give "A general and appropriate 
professional education, as much as possible adapted 
to the wants, the callings, and the capacities of 
each citizen." 

It is bound " To teach every citizen his duty to 
God, to man, and to himself ; to develop his senti- 
ments, his tendencies, and his faculties ; to teach 
him, in short, the scientific part of his labor ; to 
make him understand his own interests, and to 
give hira a knowledge of his rights." 

It is bound " To place within the reach of all, 
literature and the arts, the patrimony of thought, 
the treasures of the mind, and all those intellec- 
tual enjoyments which elevate and strengthen 
the soul." 

It is bound " To give compensation for every 
accident, from fire, inundation &c., experienced 
by a citizen." (The et ccetera means more than it 
says.) ^ 



170 GOYERNMENT. 

It is bound " To attend to the relations of capi- 
tal with labor, and to become the regulator of 
credit." 

It is bound '' To afford important encourage- 
ment and efficient protection to agriculture." 

It is bound ^' To purchase railroads, canals, and 
mines; and, doubtless, to transact affairs with that 
industrial capacity which characterizes it." 

It is bound " To encourage useful experiments, 
to promote and assist them by every means likely 
to make them successful. As a regulator of credit, 
it will exercise such extensive influence over in- 
dustrial and agricultural associations as shall in- 
sure them success." 

Government is bound to do all this, in addition 
to the services to which it is already pledged ; 
and further, it is always to maintain a menacing 
attitude toward foreigners ; for, according to those 
who sign the programme, " Bound together by 
this holy union, and by the precedents of the 
French Kepublic, we carry our wishes and hopes 
beyond the boundaries which despotism has placed 
between nations. The rights which we desire for 
ourselves, we desire for all those who are oppres- 
sed by the yoke of tyranny ; we desire that our 
glorious army should still, if necessary, be the 
army of liberty." 

You see that the gentle hand of Government-— 



GOVERMMENT. 171 

that good hand which gives and distributes, will 
be very busy under the government of the reform- 
ers. You think, perhaps, that it will be the same 
with the rough hand — that hand which dives into 
our pockets. Do not deceive yourselves. The 
aspirants after popularity would not know their 
trade, if they had not the art, when they show the 
gentle hand, to conceal the rough one. Their 
reign will assuredly be the jubilee of the tax- 
payers. 

" It is superfluities, not necessaries," they say, 
" which ought to be taxed." 

Truly, it will be a good time when the ex- 
chequer, for the sake of loading us with benefits, 
will content itself with curtailing our superfluities ! 

This is not all. The reformers intend that 
" taxation shall lose its oppressive character, and 
be only an act of fraternity." Good heavens ! I 
know it is the fashion to thrust fraternity in every- 
where, but I did not imagine it would ever be put 
into the hands of the taxrgatherer. 

To come to the details : — Those who sign the 
programme say, " We desire the immediate aboli- 
tion of those taxes which affect the absolute neces- 
saries of life, as salt, liquors, &c., &c. 

"The reform of the tax on landed property, 
customs, and patents. 

" Gratuitous justice — that is, the simplification 



172 GOYEKNMENT. 

of its forms, and reduction of its expenses." (This, 
no doubt, has reference to stamps.) 

Thus, tbe tax on landed property, customs, pa- 
tents, stamps, salt, liquors, postage, all are included. 
These gentlemen have found out the secret of 
giving an excessive activity to the gentle hand 
of Government, while they entirely paralyze its 
rough haiid. 

Well, I ask the impartial reader, is it not child- 
ishness, and more than that, dangerous childish- 
ness ? Is it not inevitable that we shall have 
revolution after revolution, if there is a determin- 
ation never to stop till this contradiction is real- 
ized : — '' To give nothing to Government and to 
receive much from it ? " 

If the reformers were to come into power, 
would they not become the victims of the means 
which they employed to take possession of it % 

Citizens ! In all times, two political systems 
have been in existence, and each may be maintained 
by good reasons. According to one of them, 
Government ought to do much, but then it ought 
to take much. According to the other, this two- 
fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to 
choose between these two systems. But as re- 
gards the third s^^stem, which partakes of both the 
others, and which consists in exacting everything 
from Government, without giving it anything, it 



GOVERNMENT. 173 

is cliimerical, absurd, cMldish, contradictory, and 
dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of 
the pleasure of accusing all Governments of weak- 
ness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are 
only flattering and deceiving you, while they are 
deceiving themselves. 

For ourselves, we consider that Government 
is and ought to be nothing whatever but the 
united power of the people, organized, not to be 
an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder 
among citizens ; but, on the the contrary, to 
secure to every one his own, and to cause justice 
and security to reign. 



174: WHAT IS MONEY? 



WHAT IS MOI^EY? 



" Hateful money ! hateful money ! " cried 

r , the economist, despairingly, as he came 

from the Committee of Finance, where a project 
of paper money had just been discussed. 

" What's the matter ? " said I. " What is the 
meanina: of this sudden dislike to the most ex- 
tolled of all the divinities of tliis world ? " 

^. Hateful money ! hateful money ! 

JB. You alarm me. I hear peace, liberty, and 
life cried down, and Brutus went so far even as to 
say, " Yirtue ! thou art but a name ! " Eut what 
can have happened ? 

I^. Hateful money ! hateful money ! 

JS. Come, come, exercise a little philosophy. 
What has happened to you ? Has Croesus been 
affecting you ? Has Jones been playing you 
false ? or has Smith been libeling you in the 
papers? " 

i^. I have nothing to do with Croesus; my 
character, by its insignificance, is safe from any 
slanders of Smith ; and as to Jones 



WHAT IS MONEY? 175 

B. All ! now I have it. How could I be so 
blind ? You, too, are the inventor of- a social re- 
organization — of the F- system^ in fact. Your 

society is to be more perfect than that of Sparta, 
and, therefore, all money is to be rigidly banished 
from it. And the thing that troubles you is, how 
to persuade your people to throw away the con- 
tents of their purses. What would you have ? 
This is the rock on which all reorganizers split. 
There is not one but would do wonders, if he 
could contrive to overcome all resisting influences, 
and if all mankind would consent to become soft 
wax in his fingers; but men are resolved not to 
be soft wax ; they listen, applaud, or reject and — 
go on as before. 

F. Tliank heaven I am still free from this 
fashionable mania. Instead of inventing: social 
laws, I am studying those which it has pleased 
Providence to invent, and I am delighted to find 
them admirable in their progressive development. 
This is why I exclaim, "Hateful money ! hateful 
money ! " 

B. You are a disciple of Proudhon, then % Well, 
there is a very simple way for you to satisfy your- 
self. Throw your purse into the river, only re- 
servino: a small draft on the Bank of Exchano-e. 

F. If I cry out against money, is it likely I 
should tolerate its deceitful substitute ? 



176 WHAT IS MONEY? 

B. Then I have only one more guess to make. 
You are a new Diogenes, and are going to vic- 
timize me with a discourse on the contempt of 
riches. 

F. Heaven preserve me from that ! For riches, 
don't you see, are not a little more or a little less 
money. They are bread for the hungry, clothes 
for the naked, fuel to warm you, oil to lengthen 
the day, a career open to your son, a certain por- 
tion for your daughter, a day of rest after fatigue, 
a cordial for the faint, a little assistance slipped 
into the hand of a poor man, a shelter from the 
storm, a diversion for a brain worn by thought, 
the incomparable pleasure of making those happy 
who are dear to us. Kiches are instruction, inde- 
pendence, dignity, confidence, charity; they are 
progress and civilization. Riches are the ad- 
mirable civilizing result of two admirable agents, 
more civilizing even than riches themselves — ■ 
labor and exchange. 

B. Well ! now you seem to be singing the 
praises of riches, w^ien, a moment ago, you were 
loading them with imprecations ! 

F. Why, don't you see that it was only the 
whim of an economist % I cry out against money, 
just because everybody confounds it, as you did 
just now, with riches, and that this confusion is 
the cause of errors and calamities without number. 



WHAT IS MONEY? 177 

I cry out against it because its function in society 
is not understood, and very difficult to explain. I 
cry out against it because it jumbles all ideas, 
causes the means to be taken for the end, the 
obstacle for the cause, the alpha for the omega ; 
because its presence in the world, though in itself 
beneficial, has, nevertheless, introduced a fatal 
notion, a perversion of principles, a contradictory 
theory, which, in a multitude of forms, has im- 
poverished mankind and deluged the earth with 
blood. I cry out against it, because I feel that 
I am incapable of contending against the error 
to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a 
long and fastidious dissertation to which no one 
would listen. Oh ! if I could only find a patient 
and benevolent listener ! 

B. Well, it shall not be said that for want of a 
victim you remain in the state of irritation in 
which you now are. I am listening ; speak, lec- 
ture, do not restrain yourself in any way. 

F, You promise to take an interest ? 

B. I promise to have patience. 

F, That is not much. 

B. It is all that I can give. Begin, and explain 
to me, at first, how a mistake on the subject of 
money, if mistake there be, is to be found at the 
root of all economical errors ? 

F, Well, now, is it possible that you can con- 



178 WHAT IS MONEY? 

scientiously assure me that you have never hap- 
pened to confound wealth with money '^ 

B, I don't know ; but, after all, what would be 
the consequence of such a confusion % 

F. ^Q\X\\TLg very important. An error in your 
brain, which would have no influence over your 
actions; for you see that, with respect to labor 
and exchange, although there are as many opin- 
ions as there are heads, we all act in the same 
way. 

B. Just as we walk upon the same principle, 
although we are not agreed upon the theory of 
equilibrium and gravitation. 

F. Precisely. A person who argued himself 
into the opinion that during the night our heads 
and feet changed places, might write very fine 
books upon the subject, but still he would walk 
about like everybody else. 

B. So I think. ^Nevertheless, he would soon 
suffer the penalty of being too much of a logi- 
cian. 

F. In the same way, a man would die of 
hunger, who having decided that money is rea] 
w^ealth, should carry out the idea to the end. 
That is the reason that this theory is false, for 
there is no true theory but such as results from 
facts themselves, as manifcrited at all times, and 
in all places. 



WHAT IS MONEY? 179 

B. I can understand, that practically, and 
under the influence of personal interest, the in- 
jurious effects of the erroneous action would tend 
to correct an error. But if that of which you 
speak has so little influence, why does it disturb 
you so mucli'^ 

F, Because, when a man, instead of acting for 
himself, decides for others, personal interest, that 
e\^er watchful and sensible sentinel, is no longer 
present to cry out, " Stop ! the responsibility is 
misplaced." It is Peter who is deceived, and 
John suffers ; the false system of the legislator 
necessarily becomes the rule of action of whole 
populations. And observe the difference. When 
you have money, and are very hungry, whatever 
your theory about money may be, what do you do \ 

B, I go to a baker's and buy some bread. 

F, You do not hesitate about using your 
money ? 

B. The only use of money is to buy what one 
wants. 

F. And if the baker should happen to be 
thirsty, what does he do ? 

B. He goes to the wine merchant's, and buys 
wine with the money I bave given him. 

F, What ! is he not afraid he shall ruin himself? 

B. The real ruin would be to go without eat- 
ing or drinking. 



180 WHAT IS MONEY? 

F. And everybody in the world, if lie is free, 
acts in the same manner? 

B. Without a doubt. Would you have them 
die of hunger for the sake of laying by pence ? 

F. So far from it, that I consider they act 
wisely, and I only wish that the theory was noth- 
ing but the faithful image of this universal prac- 
tice. But, suppose now, that you were the legis- 
lator, the absolute king of a vast empire, where 
there were no gold mines. 

B. 1^0 unpleasant fiction. 

F. Suppose, again, that you were perfectly 
convinced of this, — that wealth consists solely 
and exclusively of money, to what conclusion 
would you come ? 

B. I should conclude that there was no other 
means for me to enrich my people, or for them to 
enrich themselves, but to draw away the money 
from other nations. 

F. That is to say, to impoverish them. The 
first conclusion, then, to which you would arrive 
would be this, — a nation can only gain when an- 
other loses. 

B. This axiom has the authority of Bacon and 
Montaigne."^ 

* During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this theory 
was almost universally accepted in Europe. 



WHAT IS MONEY? 181 

F, It is not the less sorrowful for that, for it 
implies — -that progress is impossible. Two na- 
tions, no more than two men, cannot prosper side 
bj side. 

B, It would seem that such is the result of this 
principle. 

F, And as all men are ambitious to enrich 
themselves, it follows that all are desirous, accord- 
ing to a law of Providence, of ruining their fel- 
low-creatures. 

B. This is not Christianity, but it is political 
economy. 

F. Such a doctrine is detestable. But, to con- 
tinue, I have made you an absolute king. You 
must not be satisfied with reasoning, you must 
act. There is no limit to your power. How 
would you treat this doctrine — wealth is money ? 

B, It would be my endeavor to increase, in- 
cessantly, among my people the quantity of 
money. 

F, But there are no mines in your kingdom. 
How would you set about it ? What would you 
do? 

B. I should do nothing : I should merely for- 
bid, on pain of death, that a single dollar should 
leave the country. 

F. And if your people should happen to be 
hungry as well as rich ? 



182 WHAT IS MONEY? 

B. I^ever mind. In tlie s^^stem we are dis« 
cussing, to allow them to export dollars, would be 
to allow them to impoverish themselves. 

F. So that, by your own confession, you would 
force tliem to act upon a principle equally opposite 
to that upon which you would yourself act under 
similar circumstances. Why so? 

B. Just because my own hunger touches me, 
and the hunger of a nation does not touch legis- 
lators. 

F. Well, I can tell you that your plan would 
fail, and that no superintendence would be sufh- 
ciently vigilant, when the people were hungry, to 
prevent the dollars from going out and the grain 
from coining in. 

B. If so, this plan, whether erroneous or not, 
would effect nothing ; it would do neither good 
nor harm, and therefore requires no further con- 
sideration. 

F, You forget that you are a legislator. A 
legislator must not be disheartened at trifles^ 
when he is making experiments on others. 
The iirst measure not having succeeded, you 
ought to take some other means of attaining your 
end. 

B. What end ? 

F. You must have a bad memory. Why, that 
of increasing, in the midst of your people, the 



WHAT IS MONEY? 183 

quantity of money, wliich is presumed to be true 
wealth. 

B. Ah! to be sure; I beg your pardon. But 
tlien you see, as they say of music, a little is 
enough ; and this may be said, I think, with still 
more reason, of political economy. I must con- 
sider. But really I don't know how to contrive 

F. Ponder it well. First, I would have you 
observe that your first plan solved the problem 
only negatively. To prevent the dollars from going 
out of the country is the way to prevent the wealth 
from diminishing, but it is not the way to increase 
it. 

B. Ah ! now I am beginning to see . . . the 
grain which is allowed to come in ... a bright 
idea strikes me . . . the contrivance is ingenious, 
the means infallible ; I am coming to it now. 

F, Kow, I, in turn, must ask you — to what ? 

B. Why, to a means of increasing the quantity 
of money. 

F. How would you set about it, if j^ou please \ 

B. Is it not evident that if the heap of money 
is to be constantly increasing, the first condition 
is that none must be taken from it ? 

F. Certainly. 

B. And the second, that additions must con- 
stantly be made to it ? 

F. To be sure. 



184 WHAT IS MONEY? 

B. Then tlie problem will be solved, either 
negatively or positively ; if on the one hand I pre- 
vent the foreigner from taking from it, and on the 
other I oblige him to add to it. 

F. Eetter and better. 

B, And for this there mnst be two simple laws 
made, in which money will not even be mentioned. 
Ey the one, my subjects will be forbidden to bny 
anything abroad ; and by the other, they will be 
required to sell a great deal. 

F. A well-advised plan. 

B. Is it new % I must take out a patent for 
the invention. 

F. You need do no such thing ; you have been 
forestalled. But you must take care of one thing. 

B, What is that? 

F. I have made you an absolute king. I un- 
derstand that you are going to prevent your sub- 
jects from buying foreign productions. It will be 
enough if you prevent them from entering the 
country. Thirty or forty thousand custom-house 
officers will do the business. 

B. It would be rather expensive. But what 
does that signify ? The money they receive will 
not go out of the country. 

F. True ; and in this system it is the grand 
point. But to insure a sale abroad, how would 
you proceed ? 



WHAT IS MONEY? 185 

B. T should encourage it by prizes, obtained by 
means of some good taxes laid upon my people. 

F. In this case, the exporters, constrained by 
competition among themselves, would lower their 
prices in proportion, and it would be like making 
a present to the foreigner of the prizes or of the 
taxes. 

B, Still, the money would not go out of the 
country. 

F, Of course. That is understood. But if 
your system is beneficial, the governments of other 
countries will adopt it. They will make similar 
plans to yours ; they will have their custom-house 
officers, and reject your productions ; so that with 
them, as with you, the heap of money may not be 
diminished. 

B, I shall have an army and force their barriers. 
■ F. They will have an army and force yours. 

B, I shall arm vessels, make conquests, acquire 
colonies, and create consumers for my people, 
who will be obliged to eat our corn and drink our 
wine. 

F. The other governments will do the same. 
They will dispute your conquests, your colonies, 
and your consumers ; then on all sides there will 
be war, and all will be uproar. 

B. I shall raise my taxes, and increase my 
custom-house officers, my army, and my navy. 



186 WHAT IS MONEY? 

F. The others will do the same. 

B. I shall redouble my exertions. 

F. The others will redouble theirs. In the 
meantime, we have no proof that you would suc- 
ceed in selling to a great extent. 

B, It is but too true. It would be well if 
the commercial efforts would neutralize each 
other. 

F. And the military efforts also. And, tell 
me, are not these custom-house officers, soldiers, 
and vessels, these oppressive taxes, this perpetual 
struggle towards an impossible result, this perma- 
nent state of open or secret war with the whole 
w^orld, are they not the logical and inevitable con- 
sequence of the legislators having adopted an idea, 
which you admit is acted upon by no man who is 
his own master, that "wealth is money; and to 
increase the amount of money is to increase 
wealth ? " 

B. I grant it. Either the axiom is true, and 
then the legislator ought to act as I have described, 
although universal war should be the consequence ; 
or it is false ; and in this case men, in destroying 
each other, only ruin themselves. 

F. And, remember, that before you became a 
king, this same axiom had led you by a logical 
process to the following maxims: — That which 
one gains, another loses. The proiit of one is the 



WHAT IS MONEY? 187 

loss of the other : — which maxims imply an un- 
avoidable antagonism amongst all men. 

B. It is only too certain. Whether I am a 
philosopher or a legislator, whether I reason or 
act upon the principle that money is wealth, I 
always arrive at one conclusion, or one result : — ■ 
universal war. It is well that you pointed out the 
consequences before beginning a discussion upon 
it ; otherwise, I should never have had the courage 
to follow you to the end of your economical dis- 
sertation, for, to tell you the truth, it is not much 
to my taste. 

F. What do you mean? I was just thinking 
of it when you heard me grumbling against 
money ! I was lamenting that my countrymen 
have not the courage to study what it is so impor- 
tant that they should know. 

B. And yet the consequences are friglitful. 

F. The consequences ! As yet I have only 
mentioned one. I might have told you of others 
still more fatal. 

B. You make my hair stand on end ! Wliat 
other evils can have been caused to mankind by 
this confusion between monev and wealth ? 

F. It would take me a long time to enumerate 
them. This doctrine is one of a very numerous 
family. The eldest, whose acquaintance we have 
just made, is called the prohihitwe system ^ the 



188 WHAT IS MONEY? 

next, tlie colonial system ^ the third, hatred of 
capital j the last and i^ov^t, paper money. 

B. What ! does paper money proceed from the 
same error ? 

F. Yes, directly. When legislators, after hav- 
ing ruined men by war and taxes, persevere in 
their idea, they say to themselves, " If the people 
suffer, it is because there is not money enough. 
We must make some." And as it is not easy to 
multiply the precious metals, especially when the 
pretended resources of prohibition have been ex- 
hausted, they add, " We will make fictitious money, 
nothing is more easy, and then every citizen will 
have his pocket-book full of it, and they will all 
be rich." 

B. In fact, this proceeding is more expeditious 
than the other, and then it does not lead to foreign 
war. 

F, ITo, but it leads to civil disaster. 

B. You are a grumbler. Make haste and dive 
to the bottom of the question. I am quite impa- 
tient, for the first time, to know if money (or its 
sign) is wealth. 

F. You will grant that men do not satisfy any 
of their wants immediately with coined dollars, or 
dollar bills. If they are hungry, they want bread ; 
if naked, clothing ; if they are ill, they must have 
remedies ; if they are cold, they want shelter and 



WHAT IS MONEY? 189 

f ueJ ; if they would learn, tliej must have books ; if 
they would travel, they must have conveyances — • 
and so on. The riches of a country consist in the 
abundance and proper distribution of all these 
things. Hence you may perceive and rejoice at 
the falseness of this gloomy maxim of Bacon's, 
" What onepeople gains, another necessarily loses : " 
a maxim expressed in a still more discouraging 
manner by Montaigne, in these words : " The pro- 
fit of one is the loss of another ^ When Shem, 
Ham, and Japhet divided amongst themselves the 
vast solitudes of this earth, they surely might each 
of them build, drain, sow, reap, and obtain im- 
proved lodging, food and clothing, and better in- 
struction, perfect and enrich themselves — in short, 
increase their enjoyments, without causing a nec- 
essary diminution in the corresponding enjoyments 
of their brothers. It is the same with two nations. 
. £. There is no doubt that two nations, the 
same as two men, unconnected with each other, 
may, by working more, and working better, pros- 
per at the same time, without injuring each other. 
It is not this which is denied by the axioms of 
Montaigne and Bacon. They only mean to say, 
that in the transactions which take place between 
two nations or two men, if one gains, the other 
must lose. And this is self-evident, as exchange 
adds nothing by itself to the mass of those useful 



190 WHAT IS MONEY? 

things of which you were speaking ; for if, after 
the exchange, one of the parties is found to have 
gained something, the other will, of course, be 
found to have lost something. 

F. You have formed a very incomplete, na_y, a 
false idea of exchange. If Shem is located upon 
a plain which is fertile in corn, Japhet upon a 
slope adapted for growing the vine. Ham upon a 
rich pasturage — the distinction of their occupa- 
tions, far from hurting any of them, might cause 
all three to prosper more. It must be so, in fact, 
for the distribution of labor, introduced by ex- 
change, will have the effect of increasing the mass 
of corn, wine, and meat which is produced, and 
which is to be shared. How can it be otherwise, 
if you allow liberty in these transactions? From 
the moment that any one of the brothers should 
perceive that labor in company, as it were, was a 
permanent loss, compared to solitary labor, he would 
cease to exchange. Exchange brings with it its 
claim to our gratitude. The fact of its being ac- 
complished proves that it is a good thing. 

B. But Bacon's axiom is true in the case of 
gold and silver. If we admit that at a certain mo- 
ment there exists in the world a given quantity, 
it is perfectly clear that one purse cannot be filled 
without another being emptied. 

F. And if gold is considered to be riches, the 



WHA.T IS MONEY? 191 

natural conclusion is, that displacements of fortune 
take place among men, but no general progress. 
It is just what I said when I began. If, on the 
contrary, you look upon an abundance of useful 
things, tit for satisfying our wants and our tastes, 
as true riches, you will see that simultaneous pros- 
perity is possible. Money serv^es only to facilitate 
the transmission of these useful things from one 
to another, w^hich may be done equally well with 
an ounce of rare metal like gold, with a pound of 
more abundant material as silver, or with a hun- 
dredweight of still more abundant metal, as copper. 
According to that, if a country like the United 
States had at its disposal as much again of all 
these useful things, its people would be twice as 
rich, although the quantity of money remained 
the same ; but it would not be the same if there 
were double the money, for in that case the amount 
of useful things would not increase. 

B, The question to be decided is, whether the 
presence of a greater number of dollars has not 
the effect, precisely, of augmenting the sum of 
useful thino-s ? 

F. What connection can there be between 
these two terms? Food, clothing, houses, fuel, 
all come from nature and from labor, from more 
or less skillful labor exerted upon a more or less 
liberal nature. 



192 WHAT IS MONEY? 

B, You are forgetting one great force, whicli 
is — exchange. If you acknowledge that this is a 
force, as jou have admitted that dollars facilitate 
it, you must also allow that they have an indirect 
powder of production. 

F. But I have added, that a small quantity of 
rare metal facilitates transactions as much as a 
large quantity of abundant metal ; whence it fol- 
lows, that a people is not enriched by being /brc^^Z 
to give up useful things for the sake of having 
more money. 

B. Thus, it is your opinion that the treasures 
discovered in California will not increase the 
wealth of the world ? 

F. I do not believe that, on the whole, they will 
add much to the enjoyments, to the real satisfac- 
tions of mankind. If the Californian gold merely 
replaces in the world that which has been lost and 
destroyed, it may have its use. If it increases the 
amount of money, it will depreciate it. The gold 
diggers will be richer than they would have been 
without it. But those in whose possession the 
gold is at the moment of its depreciation, will ob- 
tain a smaller gratification for the same amount. I 
cannot look upon this as an increase, but as a dis- 
placement of true riches, as I have defined them. 

B, All that is very plausible. But you will 
not easily convince me that I am not richer (all 



WHAT IS MONEY? 193 

olher things being equal) if I have two dollars, 
than if I had only one. 

F. I do not deny it. 

£. And what is true of me is true of my 
neighbor, and of the neighbor of my neighbor, 
and so on, from one to another, all over the coun- 
try. Therefore, if every citizen of the United 
States has more dollars, the United States must 
be more rich. 

F. And here you fall into the common mistake 
of concluding that what affects one affects all, and 
thus confusing the individual with the general 
interest. 

B. Why, what can be more conclusive ? What 
is true of one, must be so of all. What are all, 
but a collection of individuals ? You might as 
well tell me that every American could suddenly 
grow an inch taller, without the average height 
of all the Americans being increased. 

F. Your reasoning is apparently sound, I 
grant you, and that is why the allusion it conceals 
is so common. However, let us examine it a 
little. Ten persons were at play. For greater 
ease, they had adopted the plan of each taking ten 
counters, and against these they each placed a 
hundred dollars under a candlestick, so that each 
counter corresponded to ten dollars. After the 
game the winnings were adjusted, and the players 
9 



194: WHAT IS MONEY? 

drew from tlie candlestick as many ten dollars as 
would represent the nmnber of counters. Seeing 
this, one of tliem, a great arithmetician perhaps, 
but an indifferent reasoner, said : " Gentlemen, 
experience invariably teaches me that, at the end 
of the game, I find myself a gainer in proportion 
to the number of my counters. Have you not 
observed the same with regard to yourselves ? 
Thus, what is true of me must be true of each of 
vou, and lohat is true of each must he triie of all. 
We should, therefore, all of us gain more, at the 
end of the game, if we all had more counters. 
Now, nothing can be easier ; we have only to dis- 
tribute twice the number of counters." This was 
done ; but when the game was finished, and they 
came to adjust the winnings, it was found that the 
one thousand under the candlestick had not been 
miraculously multiplied, according to the general 
expectation. They had to be divided accordingly, 
and the only result obtained (chimerical enough) 
was this; — everyone had, it is true, his double 
number of counters, but every counter, instead of 
corresponding to ten dollars, only represented ^y^. 
Thus it was clearly shown that what is true of 
each is not always true of all. 

B. I see ; you are supposing a general increase 
of counters, without a corresponding increase of 
the sum placed under the candlestick. 



WHAT IS MONEY? 195 

F, And you are supposing a general increase of 
dollars, without a corresponding increase of things, 
the exchange of which is facilitated by these dol- 
lars. 

B. Do you compare the dollars to counters ? 

F, In any other point of view, certainly not ; 
but in the case you place before me, and which I 
have to argue against, I do. Kemark one thing. 
In order that there be a general increase of dollars 
in a country, this country must have mines, or its 
commerce must be such as to give useful things 
in exchange for money. Apart from these two 
circumstances, a universal increase is impossible, 
the dollars only changing hands ; and in this case, 
although it may be very true that each one, taken 
individually, is richer in proportion to the number 
of dollars that he has, we cannot draw the infer- 
ence which you drew just now, because a dollar 
more in one purse implies necessarily a dollar less 
in some other. It is the same as with your com- 
parison of the middle height. If each of us grew 
only at the expense of others, it would be very 
true of each, taken individually, that he would be 
a taller man if he had the chance, but this would 
never be true of the whole taken collectively. 

£, Be it so : but, in the two suppositions that 
you have made, the increase is real, and you must 
allow that I am right. 



196 WHAT IS MONEY? 

F. To a certain point, gold and silver have a 
value. To obtain this value, men consent to give 
other useful things which have a value also. 
"When, therefore, there are mines in a country, if 
that country obtains from them sufficient gold to 
purchase a useful thing from abroad — a locomo- 
tive, for instance — it enriches itself with all the 
enjoyments which a locomotive can procure, ex- 
actly as if the machine had been made at home. 
The question is, whether it spends more efforts in 
the former proceeding than in the latter % For if 
it did not export this gold, it would depreciate, 
and something worse would happen than what 
did sometimes happen in California and in 
Australia, for there, at least, the precious metals 
are used to buy useful things made elsewhere. 
Nevertheless, there is still a danger that they may 
starve on heaps of gold ; as it would be if the law 
prohibited the exportation of gold. As to the 
second supposition — that of the gold which we 
obtain by trade : it is an advantage, or the reverse, 
according as the country stands more or less in 
need of it, compared to its wants of the useful 
things which must be given up in order to obtain 
it. It is not for the law to judge of this, but for 
those who are concerned in it ; for if the law 
should start upon this principle, that gold is pre- 
ferable to useful things, whatever may be their 



WHAT IS MONEY? 197 

value, and if it should act effectually in this sense, 
it would tend to put every country adopting the 
law in the curious position of having a great deal 
of cash to spend, and nothing to buy. It is the 
very same system which is represented by Midas, 
who turned everything he touched into gold, and 
was in consequence in danger of dying of starva- 
tion. 

B, The gold which is imported implies that a 
useful tiling is ^a^ported, and in this respect there 
is a satisfaction withdrawn from the country. 
But is there not a corresponding benefit ? And 
will not this gold be the source of a number of 
new satisfactions, by circulating from hand to 
hand, and inciting to labor and industry, nntil at 
length it leaves the country in its turn, and 
causes the importation of some useful thing ? 

F. I^ow you have come to the heart of the 
question. Is it true that a dollar is the principle 
which causes the production of all the objects 
whose exchange it facilitates? It is very clear 
that a piece of coined gold or silver stamped as a 
dollar is only worth a dollar ; but we are led to 
believe that this value has a particular character : 
that it is not consumed like other things, or that 
it is exhausted very gradually; that it renews 
itself, as it were, in each transaction ; and that, 
finally this particular dollar has been worth a 



198 WHAT IS MONEY? 

dollar, as many times as it has accomplished trans- 
actions — that it is of itself worth all the things 
for which it has been snccessively exchanged ; 
and this is believed, because it is supposed that 
without this dollar these things would never have 
been produced. It is said the shoemaker would 
have sold fewer shoes, consequently he would 
have bought less of the butcher ; the butcher 
would not have gone so often to the grocer, the 
grocer to the doctor, the doctor to the lawyer, 
and so on. 

B. ISTo one can dispute that. 

F. This is the time, then, to analj^ze the true 
function of money, independently of mines and 
importations. You have a dollar. What does it 
imply in your hands ? It is, as it were, the wit- 
ness and proof that you have, at some time or 
other, performed some labor, which, instead of 
turning to your advantage, you have bestowed 
upon society as represented by the person of your 
client (employer or debtor). This coin testifies 
that 3^ou have performed a service for society, and, 
moreover, it shows the value of it. It bears 
witness, besides, that you have not yet ob- 
tained from society a real equivalent service, to 
which you have a right. To place you in a con- 
dition to exercise this right, at the time and in the 
manner you please, society, as represented by 



WHAT IS MONEY? 199 

your client, lias given you an acknowledgment, 
a title, a privilege from the republic, a counter, a 
title to a dollar's wortli of property in fact, wliich 
only differs from executive titles by bearing 
its value in itself ; and if you are able to read 
with your mind's eye the inscriptions stamped 
upon it you will distinctly decipher these words : 
—''Pay the hearer a service equivalent to what 
he has rendered to society, the value received 
heing shown, proved, and measured hy that which 
is represented hy ??^e." Now, you give up your 
dollar to me. Either my title to it is gratuitous, 
or it is a claim. If you give it me as payment 
for a service, the following is the result : — your 
account with society for real satisfactions is regu- 
lated, balanced, and closed. You had rendered it 
a service for a dollar, you now restore the dollar 
for a service ; as far as you are concerned you are 
clear. As for me, I am just in the position in 
which you were just now. It is I who am now 
in advance to society for the service which I have 
just rendered it in your person. I am become its 
creditor for the value of the labor which I have 
performed for you, and which I might devote to 
myself. It is into my hands, then, that the title 
of this credit — the proof of this social debt — 
ought to pass. You cannot say that I am any 
richer ; if I am entitled to receive, it is because 



200 WHAT IS MONEY? 

I have given. Still less can you say tliat society 
is a dollar richer, because one of its members has a 
dollar more, and another has one less. For if you 
let me have this dollar gratis, it is certain that I 
shall be so much the richer, but you will be so 
much the poorer for it ; and the social fortune, 
taken in a mass, will have undergone no change, 
because as I have already said, this fortune con- 
sists in real services, in effective satisfactions, in 
useful things. You were a creditor to society ; 
you made me a substitute to your rights, and it 
signifies little to society, which owes a service, 
whether it pays the debt to you or to me. This 
is discharged as soon as the bearer of the claim is 
paid. 

JB. But if we all had a great number of dollars 
we should obtain from society many services. 
Would not that he very desirable ? 

F. You forget that in the process which I have 
described, and which is a picture of the reality, 
we only obtain services from society because we 
have bestowed some upon it. Whoever speaks of 
a service^ speaks, at the same time of a service 
received and returned, for these two terms im- 
ply each other, so that the one must always 
be balanced by the other. It is impossible for 
society to render more services than it receives, 
and yet a belief to the contrary is the chimera 



WHAT IS MONEY? 201 

which is being pursued by means of tbe multipli- 
cation of coins, of paper money, etc. 

B. All that appears very reasonable in theory, 
but in practice I cannot help thinking, when I 
see how things go, that if, by some fortunate cir- 
cumstance, the number of dollars could be multi- 
plied in such a way that each of us could see his 
little property doubled, we should all be more at 
our ease ; we should all make more purchases, 
and trade would receive a powerful stimulus. 

F. More purchases ! and what should we buy ? 
Doubtless, useful articles — things likely to pro- 
cure for us substantial gratification — such as pro- 
visions, stuffs, houses, books, pictures.' You 
should begin, then, by proving that all these 
things create themselves ; j^ou must suppose the 
Mint melting ingots of gold which have fallen 
from the moon ; or that the printing presses be 
put in action at the Treasury Department ; for 
you cannot reasonably think that if the quantity 
of corn, cloth, ships, hats, and shoes remains the 
same, the share of eacli of us can be greater, 
because we eacli go to market with a greater 
amount of real or fictitious money. Remember 
the players. In the social order the useful things 
are what the workers place under the candlestick, 
and the dollars which circulate from hand to 
hand are the counters. If you multiply the 



202 WHAT IS MONEY? 

dollars without multiplying the useful things, the 
only result will be that more dollars will be 
required for each exchange, just as the players 
required more counters for each deposit. You 
have the j)roof of this in what passes for gold, 
silver, and copper. Why does the same exchange 
require more copper than silver, more silver tlian 
gold? Is it not because these metals are dis- 
tributed in the world in different proportions? 
"What reason have you to suppose that if gold 
were suddenly to become as abundant as silver, it 
would not require as much of one as of the other 
to buy a house ? 

B. You may be right, but I should prefer your 
being wrong. In the midst of the sufferings 
wdiich surround us, so distressing in themselves, 
and so dangerous in their consequences, 1 have 
found some consolation in thinking that there was 
an easy method of making all the members of the 
community happy. 

F. Even if gold and silver were true riches, it 
would be no easy matter to increase the amount 
of them in a country where there are no mines. 

B. ]N^o, but it is easy to substitute something 
else. I agree with you that gold and silver can 
do but little service, except as a mere means of 
exchange. It is the same with paper money, 
bank-notes^ etc. Then, if we had all of us plenty 



i 



WHAT IS MONEY? 203 

of tlie latter, wliicli it is so easy to create, we 
might all buy a great deal, and should want for 
nothing.* Your cruel theory dissipates hopes, 
illusions, if you will, whose principle is assuredly 
very philanthropic. 

F. Yes, like all other barren dreams formed to 
promote universal felicity. The extreme facility 



* Stated in tlie abstract, these views, wliicli M. Bastiat 
causes liis imaginary advocate of the issue and use of irre- 
deemable paper money to express, seem so absurd, that one 
reading involuntarily asks himself : "Do people in actual 
life, holding important positions of trust and influence really 
ever thus talk and believe?" To this the answer, unfor- 
tunately, must be in the affirmative. The legislative history 
of all countries is full of examples of such utterances ; and 
that of the United States, especially, abounds with them, 
Pelatiah Webster, in his history of " Continental Money," 
tells us that when the subject of increased taxation for the 
support of the war was under consideration by the Continen- 
tal Congress, a member arose and indignantly asked, "if he 
was expected to help tax people, when they could go to the 
printing-office and get money by the cart load." 

During the debates in the Senate of the United States in 
1875, the Hon. 0. P. Morton, a senator from Indiana, a man 
whom no small number of people have thought worthy of 
being called to the Executive chair of the nation, authorita- 
tively laid down this proposition : " That an abundance of 
money" (meaning irredeemable paper money) " does produce 
enterprise, prosperity, and progress; that ichen money was 
plentiful interest would he lower," just as when horses and 
hogs are abundant, horses and hogs are cheap. The trouble 



204: WHAT IS MONEY? 

of tlie means wbicli you recommend is quite suf- 
jficient to expose its liollowness. Do you believe 
that if it were merely needful to print bank-notes 
in order to satisfy all our wants, our tastes, and 
desires, that mankind would have been contented 
to go on till now without having recourse to this 
plan ? I agree with you that the discovery is 
tempting. It would immediately banish from the 
w^orld, not only plunder, in its diversified and de- 
plorable forms, but even labor itself, except in the 
ISTational Printing Bureau. Eut we have yet to 
learn how greenbacks are to purchase houses, 
which no one would have built ; corn, which no 
one would have raised ; stuffs, which no one 
would have taken the trouble to weave. 

J^. One thing strikes me in your argument. 
You say yourself that if there is no gain, at any 
rate there is no loss in multiplying the instrument 
of exchange, as is seen by the instance of the 
players, who were quits by a very mild deception. 
Why, then, refuse the philosopher's stone, which 



liere was that this senator had not sufficiently comprehended 
the a, b, c's of finance, to appreciate the difference between 
capital and currency ; and in the simplicity of his heart im 
agined that it was all the same whether we had pictures of 
horses, hogs, and money, or real horses, hogs, and money, 
which represent, and are only produced by labor. — Robinson 
Crusoe's Money, p. 110. 



WHAT IS MONEY? 205 

would teacli us the secret of changing base mate- 
rial into gold, or what is the same thing, converting 
paper into money ? Are you so blindly wedded to 
your logic, that you would refuse to try an experi- 
ment where there can be.no risk ? If you are mis- 
taken, you are depriving the nation, as your nu- 
merous adversaries believe, of an immense advan- 
tage. If the error is on their side, no harm can 
result, as you yourself say, beyond the failure of a 
hope. The measure, excellent in their opinion, 
in yoars is merely negative. Let it be tried, 
then, since the worst which can happen is not the 
realization of an evil, but the non-realization of a 
benefit. 

F. In the first place, the failure of a hope is a 
very great misfortune to any people. It is also 
very undesirable that the government should 
announce the abolition of several taxes on the 
faith of a resource which must infallibly fail. 
]S^evertheless, your remark would desers^e some 
consideration, if, after the issue of paper money 
and its depreciation, the equilibrium of values 
should instantly and simultaneously take place in 
all things and in every part of the country. The 
measure would tend, as in my example of the 
players, to a universal mystification, in respect to 
which the best thing we could do would be to 
look at one another and laugh. But this is not 



206 WHAT IS MONEY? 

in the course of events. The experiment has 
been made, and every time a fi^overnment — be it 
King or Congress — lias altered the money ... 
M. Who sa_ys anything about altering the moneji 
¥. Why, to force people to take in payment 
scraps of paper which have been officially baptized 
dollars^ or to force them to receive, as weighing 
an onnce, a piece of silver which weighs only lialf 
an ounce, but which has been officially named a 
dollar^ is the same thing, if not worse ; and all 
the reasoning w^hich can be made in favor of pa- 
per money has been made in favor of legal false- 
coined money. Certainly, looking at it, as you 
did just now, and as you appear to be doing still, 
if it is believed that to multiply the instruments 
of exchange is to multiply the exchanges them- 
selves as well as the things exchanged, it might 
very reasonably be thought that the most simple 
means was to mechanically divide the coined dol- 
lar, and to cause the law to give to the half the 
name and value of the whole. Well, in both cases, 
depreciation is inevitable. I think I have told 
you the cause. I must also inform you, that this 
depreciation, which, with paper, might go on 
till it came to nothing, is effected by continu- 
ally making dupes ; and of these, poor people, 
simple persons, workmen and countrymen are the 
chief. 



WHAT IS MONET? 207 

B, I see ; but stop a little. This dose of Eco- 
nomy is ]-atliei* too strong for once. 

F, Be it so. We are agreed, then, upon this 
point — that wealth is the mass of nsefnl things 
which we produce by labor; or, still better, the 
result of all the efforts which we make for the 
satisfaction of our wants and tastes. These 
useful things are exchanged for each other, accord- 
ing to the convenience of those to whom they be- 
long. There are two forms in these transactions ; 
one is called barter : in this case a service is rendered 
for the sake of receiving an equivalent service im- 
mediately. In this form transactions would be 
exceedingly limited. In order that they may be 
multiplied, and accomplished independently of 
time and space amongst persons unknown to each 
other, and by infinite fractions, an intermediate 
agent has been necessary — this is money. It gives 
occasion for exchange, which is nothing else but 
a complicated bargain. This is what has to be 
remarked and understood. Exchange decomposes 
itself into two bargains, into two departments, 
sale and purchase — the reunion of which is needed 
to complete it. You sell a service, and receive a 
dollar — then, with this dollar you huy a service. 
Then only is the bargain complete ; it is not till 
then that your effort has been followed by a real 
satisfaction. Evidently you only work to satisfy 



208 WHAT IS MONEY? 

the wants of others, that others may work to 
satisfy yours. So long as you have only the dol- 
hir which has been given you for your work, you 
are only entitled to claim the work of another 
person. When you have done so, the economical 
evolution will be accomplished as far as you are 
concerned, since you will then only have obtained, 
by a real satisfaction, the true reward for your 
trouble. The idea of a bargain implies a service 
rendered, and a service received. Why should it 
not be the same with exchange, which is merely 
a bargain in two parts ? And here there are two 
observations to be made. First — It is a very un- 
important circumstance whether there be much 
or little money in the world. If there is much, 
much is required ; if there is little, little is wanted, 
for each transaction: that is ali. The second ob- 
servation is this : — Because it is seen that money 
always reappears in every exchange, it has come 
to be regarded as the sign and the measure of the 
things exchanged. 

B. Will you still deny that money is the sig7i 
of the useful things of which you speak? 

F, A half -eagle is no more the sign of a barrel of 
flour, than a barrel of flour is the sign of a half-eagle. 

B. What harm is there in looking at money as 
the sign of wealth ? 

F. The inconvenience is this — ^it leads to the 



WHAT IS MONEY? ' 209 

idea tliat we have only to increase tlie sign, in 
order to increase the things signified; and we are 
in danger of adopting all the false measures which 
you took when I made you an absolute king. We 
should go still further. Just as in money we see 
the sign of w^ealth, we see also in paper money 
the sign of money ; and thence conclude that there 
is a very easy and simple method of procuring for 
everybody the pleasures of fortune. 

£. But you will not go so far as to dispute that 
money is the measure of values ? 

F. Yes, certainly, I do go as far as that, for 
that is precisely where the illusion lies. It has 
become customary to refer the value of everything 
to that of money. It is said, this is worth five, 
ten, or twenty dollars, as we say this weighs five, 
ten, or twenty grains; this measures five, ten, or 
twenty yards; this ground contains five, ten, or 
twenty acres ; and hence it has been concluded 
that money is the measure of values. 

B. Well, it appears as if it was so. 

F. Yes, it appears so, and it is this appearance 
1 complain of, and not of the reality. A measure 
of length, size, surface, is a quantity agreed upon, 
and unchangeable. It is not so with the value of 
gold and silver. This varies as much as that of 
corn, wine, cloth, or labor, and from the same 
causes, for it has the same source and obeys the 



210 WHAT IS MONEY? 

same laws. Gold is brought within our reach, just 
like iron, by tlie labor of miners, the advances of 
capitalists, and the combination of merchants and 
seamen. It costs more or less, according to the 
expense of its production, according to whether 
there is much^or little in the market, and whether 
it is much or little in request ; in a word, it under- 
goes the fluctuations of all other human produc- 
tions. But one circumstance is singular, and gives 
rise to many mistakes. When the value of money 
varies, the variation is attributed bj language to 
the other productions for which it is exchanged. 
Thus, let us suppose that all the circumstances re- 
lative to gold remain the same, and that the corn 
harvest has failed. The price of corn will rise. 
It will be said, " The barrel of flour, which was 
w^orth five dollars, is now worth eight ; " and this 
will be correct, for it is the value of the flour which 
has varied, and language agrees with the fact. 
But let us reverse the supposition: let us suppose 
that all the circumstances relative to flour remain 
the same, and that half of all tlie gold in existence 
is swallowed up ; tliis time it is the price of gold 
which will rise. It would seem that we ought to 
say, " This half -eagle, which was worth ten dol- 
lars, is now worth twenty." Now, do you know 
how this is expressed ? Just as if it was the other 
objects of comparison which had fallen in price, 



WHAT IS MONEY? 211 

it is said — " Flour, wliich was worth ten dollars, is 
now only worth five." 

S. It all comes to the same thing in the end. 

F. 1^0 doubt ; but only think what distur- 
bances, what cheatings are produced in exchanges, 
when the value of the medium varies, without 
our becoming aware of it by a change in the name. 
Old pieces are issued, or notes bearing the name 
of five dollars, and which will bear that name 
through every subsequent depreciation. The 
value will be reduced a quarter, a half, but they 
will still be called pieces or notes of five dollars. 
Clever persons will take care not to part with 
their goods unless for a larger number of notes — 
in other words, they will ask ten dollars for what 
they would formerly have sold for five ; but 
simple persons will be taken in. Many years 
must pass before all the values will find their 
proper level. Under the influence of ignorance 
and custom, the da3^'s pay of a country laborer 
will remain for a long time at a dollar while the 
salable price of all the articles of consumption 
around him will be rising. He will sink into des- 
titution without being able to discover the cause. 
In short, since you wish me to finish, I must beg 
you, before we separate, to fix your whole atten- 
tion upon this essential point : — When once false 
money (under whatever form it may take) is put 



212 WHAT IS MONEY? 

into circulation, depreciation will ensue, and 
manifest itself by the universal rise of every 
thing which is capable of being sold. But this 
rise in prices is not instantaneous and equal for 
all things. Sharp men, brokers, and men of 
business, will not suffer by it ; for it is their trade 
to watch the fluctuations of prices, to observe the 
cause, and even to speculate upon it. Bat little 
tradesmen, countrymen, and workmen will bear 
the whole weight of it. The rich man is not any 
the richer for it, but the poor man becomes 
poorer by it. Therefore, expedients of this kind 
have the effect of increasing the distance which 
separates wealth from poverty, of paralyzing the 
social tendencies which are incessantly bringing 
men to the same level, and it will require centuries 
for the suffering classes to re:2:ain the ground 
w^hich they have lost in their advance towards 
equality of condition.^ 



* Altliougli to all wlio have investigated the subject the 
evidence is conclusive that an irredeemable fluctuating paper 
money is always made an agency for taxing with special 
severity all that class of consumers who live on fixed 
incomes, salaries, and wages, it has, nevertheless, always 
been a somewhat difficult matter to find illustrations of the 
fact so clear and simple as to carry conviction by presenta- 
tion that it does thus act to the classes most interested. 
With a view of obtaining such an illustration, application 



WHAT IS MONEY? 213 

B. Good morning; I shall go and meditate 
upon, the lecture you have been giving me. 

F. Have you finished your own dissertation ? 
As for me, I have scarcely begun mine. I have 
not yet spoken of the popular hatred of capital, of 
gratuitous credit (loans without interest) — a most 
unfortunate notion, a deplorable mistake, which 
takes its rise from the same source. 

JB. What ! does this frightful commotion of 
the populace against capitalists arise from money 
being confounded w^ith wealtli ? 

F. It is the result of different causes. Unfor- 
tunately, certain capitalists have arrogated to 
themselves monopolies and privileges which are 
quite sufficient to account for this feeling. But 
when the theorists of democracy have wished to 
justify it, to systematize it, to give it the appear- 
ance of a reasonable opinion, and to turn it 
against the very nature of capital, they have had 



was made some some montlis since to an eminent American 
merchant (A, T. Stewart), whose large and varied experience 
abundantly qualified him to discuss the subject; and the re- 
sult of the application may be thus stated : 

Q. In buying in gold and selling in currency, what addi- 
tion do you make to your selling price, in the way of insur- 
ance, that the currency received will be sufficient — plus pro- 
fit, interest, etc. — to replace or buy back the gold repre- 
sented by the original purchase ? 



214 WHAT IS MONEY? 

recourse to that false political economy at whose 
root tlie same confusion is always to be found. 
They have said to the people : — " Take a dollar ; 
put it under a glass ; forget it for a year ; then 
go and look at it, and you will be convinced that it 
has not produced ten cents, nor five cents, nor any 

A. We do but very little of th.at now ; hardly enough to 
speak about. 

Q. But still you make insurance against currency fluctua- 
tions an item in your business to be regarded to some ex- 
tent. 

A. Why, yes, certainly ; it won't do to overlook it en- 
tirely. 

Q. Well, then, if you have no objections, please tell me 
what you do allow under existing circumstances ? 

A. I have certainly no objections. We buy closely for 
cash ; sell largely for cash, or very short credit ; and, within 
the comparatively narrow limits that currency has fluctuated 
for the last two or three years, add but little to our selling 
prices as insurance on that account, say one or two per cent. 
for cash, or three months* credit ; and for a longer credit — 
if we give it — something additional. During or immedi- 
ately after the war, when the currency fluctuations were 
more extensive, frequent, and capricious, the case was very 
different. Then selling prices had to be watched very 
closely, and changed very frequently, sometimes daily. My 
present experience, therefore, is exceptional ; and to get the 
information you want, you must look further. I think I can 
help you to do this. We buy regularly large quantities of a 
foreign product, let us suppose, for illustration, cloths, for 
the large manufacturers and dealers in ready-made clothing. 
We buy for gold, and we sell for gold, and do not allow the 



WHAT IS MONEY? 215 

fraction of a cent. Therefore, money produces 
no interest." Then, substituting for the word 
monej^, its pretended sign, capital, ^^^^J have 
made it by their logic undergo this modification — 
" Then capital produces no interest." Then fol- 
lows this series of consequences — " Therefore he 



currency or its fluctuations to enter in any way into these 
transactions. But how is it with my customers ? I allow 
them some credit ; and the amount involv^ed being often 
very large, T, of course, must know something of the way in 
which they manage their business. They transform the 
cloth purchased with gold into clothing, and then sell the 
clothing, in turn, to their customers, jobbers and retailers, 
all over the country, for currency, on a much longer average 
credit than they obtain from me for their raw material. As 
a matter of safety and necessity these wholesale dealers and 
manufacturers must add to their selling prices a sufficient 
percentage to make sure that the currency they are to re- 
ceive at the end of three, six, or nine months will be suffi- 
cient to buy them as much gold as they have paid to me, or 
as much as will buy them another lot of cloth to meet the 
further demands of their business and their customers. 
How much they thus add I cannot definitely say. There is 
no regular rule. Every man doubtless adds all that compe- 
tition will permit ; and every circumstance likely to affect 
the prospective price of gold is carefully considered. Five 
per cent., in my opinion, on a credit of three months, would 
be the average minimum ; and for a longer time, a larger per- 
centage. If competition does not allow any insurance per- 
centage to be added there is a liability to a loss of capital, 
which in the long run may be most disastrous, a circum- 
stance that may explain the wreck of many firms, whos6 



216 WHAT IS MONEY? 

who lends a capital ought to obtain nothing from 
it ; therefore he who lends you a capital, if he 
gains something by it, is robbing you ; there- 
fore all capitalists are robbers ; therefore wealth, 
which ought to serve gratuitously those Avho bor- 
row it, belongs in reality to those to whom it 
does not belong ; therefore there is no such thing 
as property, therefore everything belongs to 
everybody ; therefore . . . . " 

managers, on tlie old-fasliioned basis of doing business, 
would bave been successful. Tlie jobbers and tlie re- 
tailers, to whom the wholesale dealers and manufacturers 
sell, are not so likely to take currency insurance into con- 
sideration in fixing their selling prices ; but to whatever 
amount the cost price of their goods has been enhanced by 
the necessity of insurance against currency fluctuations, on 
that same amount they estimate and add for interest and 
profits ; the total enhancement of prices falling ultimately 
on the consumer, who, of necessity, can rarely know the 
elements of the cost of the article he purchases. 

Q. So Mr. Webster, then, in his remark, which has become 
almost a proverb, that " of all contrivances for clieating the 
laboring classes, none has been more effectual than that 
which deludes them with paper money," must have been 
thoroupfhly cognizant of the nature of such transactions ? 

A. Most undoubtedly ; for such transactions are the in- 
evitable consequence of using as a medium of exchange a 
variable, irredeemable currency. 

The illustration above given, therefore, in the place of 
being imaginary, is based on the actual condition of busi- 
ness at the present time, January, 1876. — Note from Robin- 
son Crusoe's Money, by David A. Wells. 



WHAT IS MONEY? 217 

B, This is very serious ; the more so, from the 
syllogism being so admirahly formed. I should 
very much like to be enlightened on the subject. 
But, alas ! I can no longer command my atten- 
tion. There is such a confusion in my head of 
the words coin^ unoney^ services^ capital^ interest^ 
that really I hardly know where I am. We 
will, if you please, resume the conversation ano- 
ther day. 

F. In the meantime liere is a little work 
entitled Capital and Hent. It may perhaps re- 
move some of your doubts. Just look at it when 
you are in want of a little amusement. 

B. To amuse me ? 

F. Who knows ? One nail drives in another ; 
one wearisome thing drives away another. 

B. I have not yet made up my mind that your 
views upon money and political economy in gen- 
eral are correct. But, from your conversation, 
this is what I have gathered : — That these ques- 
tions are of the highest importance ; for peace or 
war, order or anarchy, the union or the antagon- 
ism of citizens, are at the root of the answer to 
them. How is it that in France and most other 
countries which regard themselves as highly civil- 
ized, a science which concerns us all so nearly, 
and the diffusion of which would have so decisive 

an influence upon the fate of mankind, is so little 

10 



218 WHAT IS MONEY? 

known? Is it that the State does not teach it 
sufficiently ? 

F. JSTot exactly. For, without knowing it, the 
State applies itself to loading everybody's brain 
with prejudices, and everybody's heart with senti- 
ments favorable to the spirit of anarchy, war, and 
hatred ; so that, when a doctrine of order, peace, 
and union presents itself, it is in vain that it has 
clearness and truth on its side, — it cannot gain ad- 
mittance. 

B, Decidedly you are a frightful grumbler. 
What interest can the State have in mystifying 
people's intellects in favor of revolutions, and 
civil and foreign wars ? There must certainly be 
a great deal of exaggeration in what you say. 

F, Consider. At the period wdien our intel- 
lectual faculties begin to develop themselves, at 
the age when impressions are liveliest, when 
habits of mind are formed w^th the greatest ease 
— when we might look at society and understand 
it — in a word, as soon as we are seven or eight 
years old, what does the State do ? It puts a 
bandage over our eyes, takes us gentl}^ from the 
midst of the social circle which snrrounds us, to 
plunge us, with our susceptible faculties, our im- 
pressible hearts, into the midst of Koman society. 
It keeps us there for ten years at least, long 
enough to make an ineffaceable impression on 



WHAT IS MONEY? 219 

tl'ie brain. !N'ow observe, that Eoman society is 
directly opposed to what our society ongbt to be. 
There they lived upon war ; liere w^e ought to hate 
war ; there they hated labor ; here w^e ought to live 
upon labor. There the means of subsistence were 
founded upon slavery and plunder; here they 
should be drawn from free industry. Roman 
society was organized in consequence of its prin- 
ciple. It necessarily admired what made it 
prosper. There they considered as virtue what 
we look upon as vice. Its poets and historians 
had to exalt what we ought to despise. The very 
words liberty, order, justice, jpeoj^le, honor, in- 
Hiience, etc., could not have the same signification 
at Home, as they have, or ought to have, at Paris. 
How can you expect that all these youths who 
liave been at university or conventual schools, 
wdth Livy and Quintus Curtius for their cat- 
echism, wiil not understand liberty like the 
Gracchi, virtue like Cato, patriotism like Caesar? 
How can you expect them not to be factious and 
w^arlike ? How can you expect them to take the 
slightest interest in the mechanism of our social 
order? Do you think that their minds have been 
prepared to understand it ? Do you not see that 
in order to do so they must get rid of their pres- 
ent impressions, and receive others entirely op- 
posed to them ? 



220 WHAT IS MONEY? 

B. What do you conclude from that? 

F. I will tell you. The most urgent necessity 
is, not that the State should teach, but that it 
should allow education. Ail monopolies are de- 
testable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of 
education. 



THE lAW. 221 



THE LAW. 



The law perverted ! The law — -and, in its wake, 
all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I 
sav, not only diverted from its proper direction, 
but made to pursue one entirely contrary ! The 
law become the tool of every kind of avarice, in- 
stead of being its check ! The law guilty of that 
very iniquity which it was its mission to punish ! 
Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one 
to which I feel bound to call the attention of my 
fellow-citizens. 

We hold from God tbe gift which, as far as we 
are concerned, contains all others, Life — physical, 
intellectual, and moral life. 

But life cannot support itself. He who has be- 
stowed it, has entrusted us with the care of sup- 
porting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it. 
To that end He has provided us with a collection 
of wonderful faculties ; He has plunged us into 
the midst of a variety of elements. It is by the 
application of our faculties to these elements that 
the phenomena of assimilation and of appropria- 



222 THE LAW. 

tion, by wliicli life pursues tlie circle wliich has 
been assigned to it, are realized. 

Existence, faculties, assimilation — in other 
words, personality, liberty, property — this is man. 
It is of these three things that it may be said, 
apart from all demagogue subtlety, that they are 
anterior and superior to all human legislation. 

It is not because men have made laws, that per- 
sonality, liberty, and property exist. On the con- 
trary, it is because personality, liberty, and prop- 
erty exist beforehand, that men make laws. 

What, then, is law ? As I have said elsewhere, 
it is the collective organization of the individual 
right to lawful defense. 

JSTature, or rather God, has bestowed upon 
every one of us the right to defend his person, 
his liberty, and liis property, since these are the 
three constituent or preserving elements of life ; 
elements, each of which is rendered complete by 
the others, and cannot be understood without 
them. For w^hat are our faculties but the exten- 
sion of our personality ? and what is property 
but an extension of our faculties ? 

If every man has the right of defending, even 
by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a 
number of men have the right to combine together, 
to extend, to organize a common force, to provide 
regularly for this defense. 



THE LAW. 223 

Collective riglit, then, has its principle, its 
reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual 
right ; and the common force cannot rationally 
have any other end, or any other mission, than 
tliat of the isolated forces for which it is substi- 
tuted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot 
lawfnlly touch the person, the liberty, or the 
property of another individual — for the same 
reason, the common force cannot lawfully be 
used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the 
property of individuals or of classes. 

For this perversion of force would be, in one case 
as in the other, in contradiction to our premises. 
For who will assume to say that force has been given 
to us, not to defend our rights, but to annihilate the 
equal rights of our brethren? And if this be not 
true of every individual force, acting independently, 
how can it be true of the collective force, which is 
only the organized union of isolated forces ? 

iJ^othing, therefore, can be more evident than 
this: — The law is the organization of the natural 
right of lawful defense ; it is the substitution of 
collective for individual forces, for the purpose of 
acting in the sphere in which such collective forces 
have a right to act, of doing what they have a 
right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and prop- 
erties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to 
cause justice to reign over all. 



224 THE LAW. 

And if a people established upon tliis basis were 
to exist, it seems to me that order would prevail 
among them in their acts as well as in their ideas. 
It seems to me that such a people would have the 
most simple, the most economical, the least oppres- 
sive, the least to be felt, the least responsible, the 
most just, and, consequently, the most solid Gov- 
ernment which could be imagined, whatever its 
political form might be. 

For, under such an administration, every one 
would feel that he possessed all the fullness, as well 
as all the responsibility of his existence. So long 
as personal safety was insured, so long as labor 
was free, and the fruits of labor secured against all 
unjust attacks, no one would have any difficulties 
to contend with in the State. When prosperous, 
we should not, it is true, have to thank the State 
for our success; but when unfortunate, we should 
no more think of taxins^ it with our disasters than 
our peasants think of attributing to it the arrival 
of hail or of frost. We should know it only by 
the inestimable blessing of Safety. 

It may further be affirmed, that, thanks to the 
non-intervention of the State in private affaii-s, 
our wants and their satisfactions would develop 
themselves in their natural order. We should not 
see poor families seeking for literary instruction 
before they were supplied with bread. We should 



THE LAW. 225 

jiot see towns peopled at the expense of rural dis- 
tricts, nor rural districts at the expense of towns. 
We should not see those great displacements of 
capital, of labor, and of population, which legisla- 
tive measures occasion ; displacements which ren- 
der so uncertain and precarious the very sources of 
existence, and thus aggravate to such an extent 
the responsibility of Governments. 

Unhappily law is by no means confined to its 
own department. Kor is it merely in some indiffe- 
rent and debatable views that it has left its proper 
sphere. It has done more than this. It has acted in 
direct opposition to its proper end; it has destroyed 
its own object; it has been employed in annihilat- 
ing that justice which it ought to have established, 
in effacino^ amonoj Rio^hts that limit which was its 
true mission to respect; it has placed the collective 
force in the service of those who wish to traffic, with- 
out risk and without scruple, in the persons, the 
liberty, and the property of others ; it has converted 
plunder into a right, that it may protect it, and 
lawful defense into a crime, that it may punish it. 

How has this perversion of law" been accom- 
plished ? And what has resulted from it ? 

The law has been perverted through the influ- 
ence of two very different causes — bare egotism 
and false philanthropy. 

Let us speak of the former. 



226 THE LAW. 

Self-preservation and developement is the com- 
mon aspiration of all men, in such a way that if 
everyone enjoyed the free exercise of his faculties 
and the free disposition of the fruits of their labor, 
social progress would be incessant, uninterrupted, 
inevitable. 

But there is also another disposition which is 
common to them. This is, to live and to develop, 
when they can, at the expense of one another. 
This is no rash imputation, emanating from a 
gloomy, uncharitable spirit. History bears witness 
to the truth of it, by the incessant wars, the migra- 
tions of races, sacerdotal oppressions, the univer- 
sality of slavery, the frauds in trade, and the mo- 
nopolies with which its annals abound. This unfor- 
tunate disposition has its origin in the very consti- 
tution of man — in that primitive, and universal, 
and invincible sentiment which urges it towards 
its well-being, and makes it seek to escape pain. 

Man can only maintain life and obtain enjoy- 
ment from a perpetual search and appropriation ; 
that is, from a perpetual application of his faculties 
to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of 
property. 

But yet he may live and enjoy, by seizing, and 
appropriating the productions of his fellow-men. 
This is the origin of plunder. 

]^ow, labor being in itself a pain, and man being 



THE lAW. 227 

naturally inclined to avoid pain, it follows, and 
history proves it, that wherever plunder is less 
burdensome than labor, it prevails; and neither 
religion nor morality can, in this case, prevent it 
from prevailing. 

When does plunder cease, then ? When it be- 
comes more difficult and more dangerous than 
labor. It is very evident that the proper aim of 
law is to oppose the powerful obstacle of collective 
force to the tendency to do wrong; tliat all its 
measures should be in favor of the security of 
property, and against plunder. 

But the law is made, generally, by one man, or 
by one class of men. And as law cannot exist 
without the sanction and the support of a prepon- 
derating force, it must finally place this force in 
the hands of those who leofislate. 

This inevitable phenomenon, combined with the 
fatal tendency which, we have said, exists in the 
heart of man, explains the almost universal per- 
version of law. It is easy to conceive that, instead 
of being a check upon injustice, it becomes its 
most invincible instrument. It is easy to conceive 
that, according to the power of the legislator, it 
destroys for its own profit, and in different degrees, 
amongst the rest of the community, personal in- 
dependence by slaver}^, liberty by oppression, and 
property by plunder. 



228 THE LAW. 

It is in the nature of men to rise against the 
injustice of which they are the victims. When, 
therefore, plunder is organized by law, for the 
profit of those who perpetrate it, all the plundered 
classes tend, either by peaceful or revolutionary 
means, to enter in some way into the business of 
manufacturing laws. These classes, according to 
the degree of enlightenment at which they have 
arrived, may propose to themselves two very dif- 
ferent ends, when they thus attempt the attainment 
of their political rights ; either they may wish to 
put an end to lawful plunder, or they may desire 
to take part in it. 

Woe to the nation where this latter thought 
prevails amongst the masses, at the moment when 
they, in their tm-n, seize upon the legislative 
power ! 

Up to that time lawful plunder has been exer- 
cised by the few npon the many, as is the case in 
countries where the rio-Iit of leo-islatino; is confined 
to a few hands. But now it has become universal, 
and the equilibrium is sought in universal plun- 
der. The injustice which society contains, instead 
of being rooted out of it, is generalized. As soon 
as the injured classes have recovered their political 
rights, their first thought is not to abolisli plunder 
(this would suppose them to possess enlightenment, 
which they cannot have), but to organize against 



THE LA.W. 229 

the other classes, and to their detriment, a system 
of reprisals — as if it was necessary, before the reign 
of justice arrives, that all should undergo a cruel 
retribution — some for their iniquity and some for 
their is^norance. 

It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce 
into society a greater change and a greater evil 
than this — the conversion of the law into an in- 
strument of plunder. 

What would be the consequences of such a per- 
version ? It would require volumes to describe 
them all. We must content ourselves with point- 
ing out the most striking. 

In the first place, it would efface from every- 
body's conscience the distinction between justice 
and injustice. 

Ko society can exist unless the laws are respect- 
ed to a certain degree, but the safest way to make 
them respected is to make them respectable. 
When law and morality are in contradiction to 
each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel 
alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of 
losing his respect for the law — two evils of equal 
magnitude, between which it would be difficult to 
choose. 

It is so much in the nature of law to support 
justice, that in the minds of the masses they are 
one and the same. There is in all of us a strong 



230 THE LAW. 

disposition to regard wliat is lawful as legitimate, 
so mncli so, that many falsely derive all notions of 
justice from law. It is sufficient, then, for the law 
to order and sanction plunder, that it may appear 
to many consciences just and sacred. Slavery, 
protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only 
in those who profit by them, but in those who suf- 
fer by them. If you suggest a doubt as to the 
morality of these institutions, it is said directly — 
"You are a dangerous innovator, a Utopian, a 
theorist, a despiser of the laws ; you would shake 
the basis upon which society rests." 

If you lecture upon morality, or political econ- 
omy, somebody will be found to make this request 
to the proper authorities : — 

" That henceforth economic science be taught 
not only w^itli sole reference to free exchange (to 
liberty, property, and justice), as has been the case 
up to the present time, but also, and especially 
with reference to the facts and legislation (contrary 
to liberty, property, and justice) which regulate 
domestic industry. 

" That in public pulpits the preachers abstain 
rigorously from impairing in the slightest degree 
the respect due to the laws now in force." ^ 

* Proceedings of tlie Frencli General Council of Manufac- 
tures, Agriculture, and Commerce, 6tli of May, 1850. 



• THE LAW. 231 

So that if a law exists which sanctions slavery 
or monopoly, oppression or plunder, in any form 
whatever, it must not even be mentioned — for how 
can it be mentioned without damaging the respect 
which it inspires ? Still further, morality and po- 
litical economy must be taught in connection with 
this law — that is, under the supposition that it 
must be just, only because it is law. 

Another effect of this deplorable perversion of 
the law is, that it gives to human passions and to 
political struggles, and in general to politics, pro- 
perly so called, an exaggerated preponderance: 

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. 
But I shall confine myself, by way of illustration, 
to bringing it to bear upon a subject which has 
of late occupied everybody's mind — universal suf- 
frage. 

Whatever may be thought of it, I maintain that 
universal suffrage (taking the word in its strictest 
sense) is not one of those sacred dogmas with re- 
spect to which examination and doubt are crimes. 

Serious objections may be made to it. 

In the first place, the word imiversal conceals a 
gross sophism. There are, in France, for example, 
36,000,000 of inhabitants. To make the right of 
suffrage universal, 36,000,000 of electors should 
be reckoned. The most extended system reckons 
only 9,000,000. Three persons out of four, then, 



232 THE LAW. 

are excluded ; and more tLan this, tliey are ex- 
cluded by the fourth. Upon what principle is this 
exchision founded ? Upon the principle of inca- 
pacity. Universal suffrage, then, means — univer- 
sal suffrage of those who are capable. In point 
of fact, who are the capable ? Are age, sex, and 
judicial condemnations the only conditions to which 
incapacity is to be attached ? 

On taking a nearer view of the subject, we may 
soon perceive the motive which causes the right 
of suffrage to depend upon the presumption of in- 
capacity ; the most extended system differing only 
in this respect from the most restricted, by the 
appreciation of those conditions on which this in- 
capacity depends, and which constitute, not a 
difference in principle but in degree. 

This motive is, that the elector does not stipU' 
late for himself, but for everybody. 

If, as the republicans of the Grreek and Roman 
tone pretend, the right of suffrage had fallen to 
tlie lot of every one at his birth, it would be an 
injustice to adults to prevent women and children 
from voting. Why are they prevented ? Because 
they are presumed to be incapable. And why is 
incapacity a motive for exclusion ? Because the 
elector does not alone sustain the responsibility of 
his vote ; because every vote affects the community 
at large ; because the community has a right to 



THE LAW. 233 

demand some security of each elector in respect 
to tlie performance of acts upon which his well- 
being depends. 

I know what might be said in answer to this, 
I know what might be objected. But this is not 
the place to enter into a controversy of this kin(]. 
lYhat I wish to observe is this, that this same con- 
troversy about suffrage (in common with most 
political questions) which agitates, excites, and un- 
settles the nations, would lose almost all its impor- 
tance if tlie law had always been what it ought to be. 

In fact, if law were confined to causing all per- 
sons, all liberties, and all properties to be re- 
spected ; if it were merely the organization of in- 
dividual right and individual defense ; if it were 
the obstacle, the check, the chastisement opposed 
to all oppression, to all plunder — is it likely that 
we should dispute much, as citizens, on the sub- 
ject of the greater or less universality of suffrage ? 
Is it likely that such disputes would compromise 
that greatest of advantages, the public peace ? Is 
it likely that the excluded classes would not quietly 
wait for their political recognition ? Is it likely 
that the enfranchised classes would be very jeal- 
ous of tlieir privilege ? And is it not clear, that 
the interest of all being one and the same, a few 
would manage political affairs without much incon- 
venience to the others ? 



234: THE LAW. 

But if tlie fatal principle should come to be 
introduced, that, under pretense of organization, 
regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law 
ma J take from one party in order to give to 
another; help itself to wealth acquired by all 
classes that it may increase that of one class, 
whether that of the agriculturists, the manufac- 
turers, the shipowners, or artists and comedians ; 
then certainly, in this case, there is no class which 
may not pretend, and with reason, to place its 
hand upon the law ; which would not demand 
with fury its right of election and eligibilit}^, and 
which would not overturn society rather than 
not obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will 
prove to you that they have an incontestable title 
to suffrage. They will say — " We never buy 
wine, tobacco, or salt, without paying the tax, 
and a part of this tax is given by law in perqui- 
sites and gratuities to men who are richer than 
we are. Others make use of the law to create an 
artificial rise in the price of bread, meat, iron, or 
cloth. Since everybody traffics in law for his 
own profit, we should like to do the same. We 
should like to make it affirm the right to assist- 
ance, public and private, which is the poor man's 
plunder. To effect this, we ought to be electors 
and legislators, that we may organize, on a large 
scale, alms for our own class, as you have organ- 



THE LAW. 235 

ized, on a large scale, protection for yours. Don't 
tell us that you will take our cause upon your- 
selves, and throw to us bounties and offices to keep 
us quiet, like giving us a bone to pick. We have 
other claims, and, at any rate, we wisli to stipu- 
late for ourselves, as other classes have stipulated 
for themselves ! " How is this argument to be 
answered? Yes, as long as it is admitted that 
the law may be diverted from its true mission, that 
it may violate property instead of securing it, 
everybody will be wanting to manufacture law, 
either to defend himself against plunder, or to or- 
ganize it for his own profit. The political ques- 
tion will always be prejudicial, predominant, and 
absorbing ; in a word, there will be fighting 
around the door of the Leo^islative Chambers. 
The struggle will be no less furious within them. 
To be convinced of this, it is hardly necessary to 
look at what passes in the Chambers in France, in 
England, and in the United States ; it is enough 
to know how the question stands. 

Is there any need to prove that this odious per- 
version of law is a perpetual source of hatred and 
discord — that it even tends to social disorganiza- 
tion ? Look at the United States. There is no 
country in the world where the law is kept more 
within its proper domain — which, is, to secure to 
every one his liberty and his property. There- 



236 THE LAW. 

fore, there is no country in tlie world where social 
order ajppears to rest upon a more solid basis. 
Nevertheless, even in the United States, there 
are two questions, and only two, which from the 
beginning have endangered political order. And 
what are these two questions ? That of slavery 
and that of the tariff ; * that is, precisely the only 
two .questions in w^hich, contrary to the general 
spirit of this republic, law has taken the character 
of a plunderer. Slavery is a violation, sanctioned 
by law, of the rights of the person. Protection is 
a violation perpetrated by the law upon the rights 
of property ; and certainly it is very remarkable 
that, in the midst of so many other debates, this 
double legal scourge^ a sorrowful inheritance from 
the Old World, should be the only one wdiich can, 
and perhaps w^ill, cause tlie rupture of the Union. 
Indeed, a more astounding fact, in the heart of 
society, cannot be conceived than this : — That 
law should have hecome an instrwnient of injustice. 
And if this fact occasions consequences so formid- 
able to tlie United States, wliere there is but one 
exception, wdiat must it be with us in Europe, 
where it is a principle — a system ? 

M. Montalembert, adopting the thought of a 



* Tlie reader will bear in mind that this essay was written 
by M. Bastiat before the emancipation in the United States. 



THE LAW. 237 

famous proclamation of M. Carlier, said, ""We 
must make war against socialism." And by so- 
cialism, according to the definition of M. Charles 
Dnpin, he meant plunder. 

But what plunder did he mean ? For there 
are two sorts — extra-legal and legal ^hinder. 

As to extra-legal plunder, such as theft, or 
swindling, which is defined, foreseen, and pun- 
ished by the penal code, I do not think it can be 
adorned by the name of socialism. It is not this 
which systematically threatens the foundations of 
society. Besides, the war against this kind of 
plunder has not waited for the signal of M. Mon- 
talembert or M. Carlier. It has gone on since the 
beginning of the world ; France was carrying it 
on long before the revolution of February, 1848 
— ^long before the appearance of socialism — with 
all the ceremonies of magistracy, police, prisons, 
dungeons, and scaffolds. It is the law itself 
wdiich is conducting this war, and it is to be 
wished, in my opinion, that the law should always 
maintain this attitude with respect to plunder. 

But this is not the case. The law sometimes 
takes its own part. Sometimes it accomplishes it 
with its own hands, in order to save the parties 
benefited the shame, the danger, and the scruple. 
Sometimes it places all this ceremony of magis- 
tracy, police, gendarmerie, and prisons, at the ser- 



238 THE LAW. 

vice of the plunderer, and treats the plundered 
party, when he defends himself, as the criminal. 
In a word, there is a legal plunder, and it is, no 
doubt, this which is meant by M. Montalembert. 

This plunder may be only an exceptional blem- 
ish in the legislation of a people, and in this 
case the best thing that can be done is, without 
so many speeches and lamentations, to do away 
with it as soon as possible, notwithstanding the 
clamors of interested parties. But how is it to be 
distinguished ? Yery easily. See whether the 
law takes from some persons that which belongs 
to them, to give to others what does not belong to 
them. See whether the law performs, for the 
profit of one citizen, and to the injury of others, 
an act which this citizen cannot perform without 
committin^y a crime. Abolish this law without 
delay ; it is not merely an iniquity — it is a fertile 
source of iniquities, for it invites reprisals ; and 
if you do not take care, the exceptional case will 
extend, multiply, and become systematic. Xo 
doubt the party benefited will protest loudly ; he 
wdl1 assert his acquired rights. He will say that 
the State is bound to protect and encourage his 
industry ; he will plead that it is a good thing for 
the State to be enriclied, that it may spend the 
more, and thus shower down salaries upon the 
poor workmen. Take care not to listen to this 



THE LAW. 239 

sophistry, for it is just by the generalizing of 
these arguments that legal-plunder becomes sys- 
tematized. 

And this is what has taken place. The delu- 
sion of the day is to enrich all classes at the ex- 
pense of each other ; it is to generalize plunder 
under pretense of organizing it. ISiow, legal 
plunder may be exercised in an infinite multitude 
of ways. Hence come an infinite multitude of 
plans for organization ; tariffs, protection, perqui- 
sites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive tax- 
ation, gratuitous instruction, right to labor, right 
to profit, right to wages, right to assistance, right 
to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc., 
etc. And it is all these plans, taken as a whole, 
with what they have in common, legal plunder, 
which takes the name of socialism. 

I^ow socialism, thus defined, and forming a 
doctrinal body, what other war would you make 
against it than a war of doctrine ? You find this 
doctrine false, absurd, abominable. Refute it. 
This will be all the more easy, the more false, the 
]iiore absurd and the more abominable it is. 
Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by 
rooting out of your legislation every particle of 
socialism which may have crept into it, — and this 
will be no light work. 

M. Montalembert has been reproached with 



240 THE LAW. 

wlshino^ to turn brute force asrainst socialism. 
He ought to be exonerated from this reproach, 
for he has plainly said : — " The war which we must 
make against socialism must be one which is com- 
patible with the law, honor, and justice.'' 

But how is it that M. Montalembert does not 
see that he is placing himself in a vicious circle ? 
You would oppose law to socialism. But it is the 
law which socialism invokes. It aspires to legal, 
not extra-legal plunder. It is the law itself, in 
common with monopolists of all kinds, that social- 
ism wants to use as an instrument ; and when 
once it has the law on its side, how will you be 
able to turn the law as^ainst it ? How will you 
place it under the power of your tribunals, your 
police, and of your prisons ? What will you do 
then ? You wish to prevent it from taking 
any part in the making of laws. You would 
keep it outside the Legislative Halls. In this j^ou 
will not succeed, I venture to prophesy, so long 
as legal plunder is the basis of the legislation 
within. 

It is absolutely necessary that this question of 
legal plunder should be clearly defined, and there 
are only three solutions of it : — ■ 

1. Wlien the few plunder the many. 

2. When everybod}^ plunders everybody else. 

3. When nobody plunders anybody. 



THE LAW. 241 

Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of 
plunder, amongst these we have to make our 
choice. The law can only produce one of these 
results. 

Partial plunder. — This is the system w^iich 
prevailed so long as the elective privilege was 
^partial — a system which is resorted to to avoid 
the invasion of socialism. 

Universal plunder. — We have been threatened 
by this system when the elective privilege has be- 
come universal ; the masses having conceived the 
idea of making law on the principle of legislators 
who had preceded them.. 

Absence of plunder. — This is the principle of 
justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and of 
good sense, which I shall proclaim with all the 
force of my lungs (which is very inadequate, 
alas !) till the day of my death. 

And, in all sincerity, can anything more be re- 
quired at the hands of the law % Can the law, 
whose necessary sanction is force, be reasonably 
employed upon anything beyond securing to every 
one his right % I defy any one to remove it from 
this circle without perverting it, and consequently 
turning force against right. And as this is the 
most fatal, the most illogical social perversion 
which can possibly be imagined, it must be ad- 
mitted that the true solution, so much sought 
11 



242 THE LAW. 

after, of the social problem, is contained in these 
simple words — -Law is organized Justice. 

Now it is important to remark, that to organ- 
ize justice by law, that is to say by force, excludes 
the idea of organizing by law, or by force any 
manifestation whatever of human activity — labor, 
charity, agriculture, commerce, industr}^, instruc- 
tion, the fine arts, or religion ; for any one of these 
organizations would inevitably destroy the essen- 
tial organization. How, in fact, can we imagine 
force encroaching upon the liberty of citizens with- 
out infringing upon justice, and so acting against 
its proper aim ? 

Here I am encountering the most popular pre- 
judice of our time. It is not considered enough 
that law should be just, it must be philanthropic. 
It is not sufficient that it should guarantee to 
every citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of 
his faculties, applied to his physical, intellectual, 
and moral development ; it is required to extend 
well-being, instruction, and morality, directly over 
the nation. This is the fascinating side of social- 
ism. 

But, I repeat it, these two missions of the law 
contradict each other. We have to choose between 
them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free 
and not free. M. de Lamartine wrote to me one 
day thus : — " Your doctrine is only the half of my 



THE LAW. 243 

programme ; you have stopped at liberty, I go on 
to fraternity." I answered him : — " The second 
part of your programme will destroy the first." 
A.nd in fact it is impossible for me to separate the 
word fraternity from the world voliontary. I 
cannot possibly conceive fraternity as something 
which has got to be legally enforced, without 
liberty being legally destroyed, and justice legally 
trampled under foot. Legal plunder has two 
roots : one of them, as we have already seen, is in 
human selfishness; the other is in false philan- 
thropy. 

Before I proceed I think I ought to explain 
myself upon the word plunder.* 

I do not take it, as it often is taken, in a vague, 
undefined, relative, or metaphorical sense. I use 
it in its scientific acceptation, and as expressing 
the opposite idea to property. When a portion of 
wealth passes out of the hands of him who has 
acquired it, without his consent, and without com- 
pensation, to him who has not created it, whether 
by force or by artifice, I say that property is vio- 
lated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this 
is exactly what the law ought to repress always 
and everywhere. If the law itself performs the 
action it ought to repress, I say that plunder is 



* The Frencli word is spoliation. 



244 THE LAW. 

still perpetrated, and even, in a social point of 
view, under aggravated circumstances. In this 
case, liowever, he who profits from the plunder is 
not responsible for it ; it is the law, the lawgiver, 
society itself, and this is where the political danger 
lies. 

It is to be regretted that there is something 
offensive in the word. I have sought in vain for 
another, for I would not wish at any time to add 
an irritating word to our dissensions ; therefore, 
whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do 
not mean to accuse the intentions nor the moralitv 
of anybody. I am attacking an idea which I 
believe to be false — a system which appears to me, 
to be unjust; and this is so independent of inten- 
tions that each of us profits by it without wishing 
it, and suffers from it without being aware of the 
cause. Any person mast write under the influence 
of party spirit or of fear who would call in ques- 
tion the sincerity of the advocates of protectionism, 
of socialism, and even of communism, which are 
one and the same plant, in three different periods 
of its growth. All that can be said is, that plun- 
der is more visible by its partiality in protection- 
ism,* and by its universality in communism ; 

* If protection were only granted in a country — as, for 
example, the United States — to a single class, to the cotton- 
manufactures, for instance, it would be so obviously plun- 



THE LAW. 245 

wlience it follows that, of the three systems, social- 
ism is still the most vague, the most undefined, 
and consequently the most sincere. 

Be it as it may, to conclude that legal plunder 
has one of its roots in false philanthropy, is evi- 
dently to put intentions out of the question. 

"With this understanding, let us examine the 
value, the origin, and the tendency of this popular 
aspiration, which pretends to realize the general 
good by general plunder. 

The Socialists say, since the law organizes jus- 
tice, why should it not organize labor, instruction, 
and religion ? 

"Why ? Because it could not organize labor, 
instruction, and religion, without disorganizing 
justice. 

For remember that law is force, and that con- 
sequently the domain of the law cannot lawfully 
extend beyond the domain of force. 

When laAv and force keep a man within the 
bounds of justice, they impose nothing upon him 
but a mere negation. They only oblige him to 

dering as to be unable to maintain itself. But tlie fact is, 
all tlie protected trades combine, make common cause, and 
recruit tliemselves in sucli a way as to make it appear as if 
they included in tbeir sphere tlie whole industry of the 
country. They feel instinctively that plunder is disguised 
by being generalized. 



246 THE LAW. 

abstain from doing harm. They violate neither 
his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They 
only guard the personality, the liberty, the prop- 
erty of others. They hold themselves on the 
defensive ; they defend the equal right of all. 
They fulfill a mission whose harmlessness is evident, 
whose utility is palpable, and whose legitimacy is 
not to be disputed. This is so true that, as a 
friend of mine once remarked to me, to say that 
the aim of the law is to cause justice to reign, is 
to use an expression which is not rigorously exact. 
It ought to be said, the aim of the law is to prevent 
injustice from reigning. In fact, it is not justice 
which has an existence of its own, it is injustice. 
The one results from the absence of the other. 

But when the law, through the medium of its 
necessary agent — force, imposes a form of labor, 
a method or a subject of instruction, a creed or a 
worship, it is no longer negative ; it acts positively 
upon men. It substitutes the will of the legislator 
for their own will, the initiative of the legislator 
for their own initiative. They have no need to 
consult, to compare, or to foresee ; the law does 
all that for them. The intellect is for them a use- 
less lumber ; they cease to be men ; they lose their 
personality, their liberty their property. 

Endeavor to imagine a form of labor imposed 
by force which is not a violation of liberty; a 



THE LAW. 247 

transmission of wealth imposed by force which is 
not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed 
in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that 
the law cannot organize labor and industry without 
organizing injustice. 

When, from the seclusion of his cabinet, a poli- 
tician takes a view of societ}^, he is struck with the 
spectacle of inequality which presents itself. He 
mourns over the sufferino;s which are the lot of so 
many of our brethren, sufferings whose aspect is 
rendered yet more sorrowful by the contrast of 
luxury and wealth. 

He ought, perliaps, to ask himself whether such 
a social state has not been caused by the plunder 
of ancient times, exercised in the way of con- 
quests ; and by plunder of later times, effected 
through the medium of the laws? He ought to ask 
himself whether, granting the aspiration of all men 
after well-being and perfection, tlie reign of jus- 
tice would not suffice to realize the greatest activ- 
ity of progress, and the greatest amount of equality 
compatible with that individual responsibility 
which God has awarded as a just retribution of 
virtue and vice ? 

He never gives this a thought. His mind turns 
toward combinations, arrangements, legal or fac- 
titious organizations. He seeks the remedy in 
perpetuating and exaggerating what has produced 
the evil. 



248 THE LAW. 

For, justice apart, wliicli we have seen is only 
a negation, is there any one of these legal arrange- 
ments which does not contain the principle of 
plunder ? 

You say, " There are men who have no money,'' 
and you apply to the law. But the law is not a 
self-supplied fountain, whence every stream may 
obtain supplies independently of society, l^othing 
can enter the p>ublic treasury, in favor of one 
citizen or one class, but what other citizens and 
other classes have been forced to send to it. If 
ever J one draws from it only the equivalent of 
what he has contributed to it, your law, it is true, 
is no plunderer, but it does nothing for men who 
want money — it does not promote equality. It 
can only be an instrument of equalization as far 
as it takes from one party to give to another, and 
then it is an instrument of plunder. Examine, in 
this light, the protection of tariffs, prizes for en- 
couragement, right to profit, right to labor, right 
to assistance, right to instruction, progressive taxa- 
tion, gratuitousness of credit, social workshojDS, 
and you will always lind at the bottom legal 
plunder, organized injustice. 

You say, " There are men who want knowl- 
edge," and you apply to the law. But the law 
is not a torch which sheds light abroad which is 
peculiar to itself. It extends over a society where 



THE lAW. 249 

there are men who have knowledge, and others 
who have not; citizens who want to learn, and 
others who are disposed to teach. It can only do 
one of two things : either allow a free scope to this 
kind of transaction, i.e., let this kind of want 
satisfy itself freely ; or else force the will of the 
people in the matter, and take from some of them 
sufficient to pay professors commissioned to in- 
struct others gratuitously. But, in this second 
case, there cannot fail to be a violation of liberty 
and property — legal plunder. 

You say, " Here are men who are wanting in 
morality or religion," and you apply to the law ; 
but law is force, and need I say how far it is a 
violent and absurd enterprise to introduce force in 
these matters ? 

As the result of its systems and of its efforts, it 
would seem that socialism, notwithstanding all its 
self-complacency, can scarcely help perceiving the 
monster of legal plunder. But what does it do ? 
It disguises it cleverly from others, and even from 
itself, under the seductive names of fraternity, 
solidarity, organization, association. And because 
we do not ask so much at the hands of the law, 
because we only ask it for justice, it supposes that 
we reject fraternity, solidarity, organization, and 
association ; and they brand us with the name of 
individualists. 



250 THE LAW. 

"We can assure them that what we repudiate is, 
not natural organization, but forced organization. 

It is not free association, but the forms of asso- 
ciation which they would impose upon us. 

It is not spontaneous fraternity, but legal frater- 

nity. 

It is not providential solidarity, but artificial 
solidarity, which is only an unjust displacement of 
responsibility. 

Socialism, like the old policy from which it ema- 
nates, confounds Government and society. And 
so, every time we object to a thing being done by 
Government, it concludes that we object to its 
being done at all. We disapprove of education 
by the State — then we are against education alto- 
gether. We object to a State religion — then we 
would have no religion at all. We object to an 
equality which is brought about by the State — 
then we are against equality etc., etc. They 
might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, 
because we object to the cultivation of corn by 
the State. 

How is it that the strange idea of making the 
law produce what it does not contain — prosperity, 
in a positive sense, wealth, science, religion — should 
ever have gained ground in the political world ? 
The modern politicians, particularly those of the 
Socialist school, found their different theories upon 



THE LAW. 251 

one common hypothesis ; and surely a more strange, 
a more presumptuous notion, could never have 
entered a human brain. 

They divide mankind into two parts. Men in 
general, except one, form the first ; the politician 
himself forms the second, which is by far the most 
important. 

In fact, they begin by supposing that men are 
devoid of any principle of action, and of any 
means of discernment in themselves ; that they 
have no moving spring in them ; that they are 
inert matter, passive particles, atoms without im- 
pulse ; at best a vegetation indifferent to its own 
mode of existence, susceptible of receiving, from an 
exterior will and hand, an infinite number of forms? 
more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected. 

Moreover, every one of these politicians does 
not scruple to imagine that he himself is, under 
the names of organizer, discoverer, legislator, in- 
stitutor or founder, this will and hand, this uni- 
versal spring, this creative power, whos(?sublime 
mission it is to gather together these scattered 
materials, that is, men into society. 

Starting from these data, as a gardener, accord- 
ing to his caprice, shapes his trees into j^yramids, 
parasols, cubes, cones, vases, distaffs, or fans ; so 
the Socialist, following his chimera, shapes poor 
humanity into groups, series, circles, subcircles, 



252 THE LAW. ^ 

honeycombs, or social workshops, with all kinds of 
variations. And as the gardener, to bring his 
trees into shape, wants hatchets, praning-hooks, 
saws, and shears, so the politician, to bring society 
into shape, wants the forces which he can only 
find in the laws ; the law of customs, the law of 
taxation, the law of assistance, and the law of in- 
struction. 

It is so true that the Socialists look upon man- 
kind as a subject for social combinations, that if, 
by chance, they ai-e not quite certain of the success 
of these combinations, they will request a portion 
of mankind as a subject to experiment npon. It 
is well known how popular the idea of trying all 
systems is, and one of the French Socialists once 
seriously demanded of the French Constituent 
Assembly a parish, with all its inhabitants, upon 
which to make his experiments. 

It is thus that an inventor will make a small 
machine before he makes one of the regular size. 
Thus tke chemist sacrifices some substances, the 
agriculturist some seed and a corner of his field, 
to make trial of an idea. 

But, then, think of the immeasurable distance 
between the gardener and his trees, between the 
inventor and his machine, between the chemist 
and his substances, between the agriculturist and 
his seed ! The Socialist thinks, in all sincerity, 



\ 



THE LAW. 253 

tliat there is the same distance between himself 
and mankind. 

It is not to be wondered at that the politicians 
of the nineteenth century look npon society as 
an artificial production of the legislator's genius. 
This idea has taken possession of many thinkers 
and great writers in all countries. 

To all these persons the relations between man- 
kind and the legislator appear to be the same as 
those which exist between the clay and the potter. 

Moreover, if they have consented to recognize 
in the heart of man a principle of action, and in 
his intellect a principle of discernment, they have 
looked upon these gifts of God as pernicious, and 
thought that mankind, under these two impulses, 
tended fatally toward ruin. They have taken it 
for granted that, if abandoned to their own incli- 
nations, men would only occupy themselves with 
religion to arrive at atheism, with instruction to 
come to ignorance, and with labor and exchange 
to be extinguished in misery. 

Happily, according to these writers, there are 
some men, termed governors and legislators, upon 
wboni Heaven has bestowed opposite tendencies, 
not for their own sake only, but for the sake of 
the rest of the world. 

Whilst mankind tends to evil, they incline to 
good ; whilst mankind is advancing toward dark- 



254 THE LAW. 

ness, tliey are aspiring to enlightenment ; whilst 
mankind is drawn toward vice, they are attracted 
by virtue. And, this granted, thej demand the 
assistance of force, by means of which they are to 
substitute their own tendencies for those of the 
human race. 

It is only needful to open, almost at random, a 
book on philosophy, politics, or history, to see how 
strongly this idea is rooted in literature ; that 
mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, 
organization, morality, and wealth from power ; 
or, rather, and still worse — that mankind itself 
tends toward d emaciation, and is onlv arrested in. 
its tendency by the mysterious hand of the legis- 
lator. Classical conventionalism shows us every- 
where, behind passive society, a hidden power, 
under the names of Law, or Legislator (or, by a 
mode of expression which refers to some person 
or persons of undisputed weight and authority, 
but not named), which moves, animates, enriches, 
and regenerates mankind. 

We will first ask attention to a quotation from 
Bossuet : — 

" One of tlie tilings wliicli was the most strongly impressed 
(by wlioni ?) upon the mind of the Egyptians, was the love 

of their country Nobody was allowed to be 

useless to the State; the law assigned to every one his em- 
ployment, which descended from father to son. No one waa 
permitted to have two professions, nor to adopt another. 



THE LAW. 255 

But there was one occupation wliicli teas oMiged 

to be common to all — tliis was tlie study of the laws and of 
wisdom ; ignorance of religion and the political regulations 
of the country was excused in no condition of life. More- 
over, every profession had a district assigned to it (by whom ?). 

Amongst good laws, one of the best things was 

that everybody was taught to observe them (by whom ?). 
Egypt abounded with wonderful inventions, and nothing was 
neglected which could render life comfortable and tranquil." 

Thus men, according to Bossuet, derive noth- 
ing from themselves ; patriotism, wealth, inven- 
tions, husbandry, science— all come to them by 
the operation of the laws, or by kings. All they 
have to do is to be passive. It is on this ground 
that Bossuet takes exception, when Diodorus ac- 
cuses the Egyptians of rejecting wrestling and 
music. " How is that possible," says he, " since 
these arts were invented by Trismegistus ? " 

It is the same with the Persians : — 

" One of the first cares of the prince was to encourage 

agriculture As there Avere posts established 

for the regulation of the armies, so there were offices for the 

superintending of rural works The respect 

with which the Persians were inspired for royal authority 
was excessive." 

The Greeks, although full of mind, were no less 
strangers to their own responsibilities; so much 
so, that of themselves, like dogs and horses, they 
would not have ventured upon the most simple 
games. In a classical sense, it is an undisputed 



256 THE LAW. 

thing that everything comes to the people from 

without. 

" The Greeks, Daturally fuU of spirit and courage, had 
deen early cultivated by kings and colonies who had come 
from Egypt. From them they had learned the exercises of 

the body, foot races, and horse and chariot races 

The best thing that the Egyptians had taught them was to 
become docile, and to allow themselves to be formed by the 
laws for the public good." 

J^enelon.— 'Reared in the study and admiration 
of antiquity, and a witness of the power of Louis 
XI Y., Fenelon naturally adopted the idea that 
mankind should be passive, and that its misfor- 
tunes and its prosperities, its virtues and its vices, 
are caused by the external influence which is ex- 
ercised upon it by the law, or by the makers of 
the law. Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he 
brings the men, with their interests, their facul- 
ties, their desires, and their possessions, under the 
absolute direction of the legislator. "Whatever 
the subject may be, they themselves have no 
voice in it — the prince judges for them. The 
nation is just a shapeless mass, of which the 
prince is the soul. In him resides the thought, 
the foresight, the principle of all organization, of 
all progress ; on him, therefore, rests all the re- 
sponsibility. 

In proof of this assertion, I might transcribe 
the whole of the tenth book of " Telemachus." 



THE LAW. 257 

I refer the reader to it, and shall content myself 
with quoting some passages taken at random from 
this celebrated work, to which, in every other re- 
spect, I am most ready to render justice. 

With the astonishing credulity which character- 
izes the classics, Fenelon, against the authority of 
reason and of facts, admits the general felicity of 
the Egyptians, and attributes it, not to their own 
wisdom, but to that of their kings : — 

** We could not turn our eyes to tlie two sliores "witliout 
perceiving rich towns and country seats, agreeably situated ; 
fields wliicli were covered every year, witliout intermission, 
witli golden crops ; meadows full of flocks ; laborers bending 
under the weight of fruits which the earth lavished on its 
cultivators ; and shepherds who made the echoes around 
repeat the soft sounds of their pipes and flutes. ' Happy,* 
said Mentor, ' is that people which is governed by a wise king. 

Mentor afterwards desired me to remark the 

happiness and abundance which was spread over all the 
country of Egypt, where twenty-two thousand cities might be 
counted. He admired the excellent police regulations of the 
cities; the justice administered in favor of the poor against 
the rich ; the good education of the children, who were accus- 
tomed to obedience, labor, and the love of arts and letters ; 
the exactness with which all the ceremonies of religion were 
performed ; the disinterestedness, the desire of honor, the 
fidelity to men, and the fear of the gods, with which every 
father inspired his children. He could not suflBciently ad- 
mire the prosperous state of-the country. ' Happy' said he, 
' is the people wJiom a wise king rules in such a manner,' " 

Fenelon's idyl on Crete is still more fascinating 
Mentor is made to say : — 



258 THE LAW. 

" All tliat you will see in tliis wonderful island is tlie re- 
sult of tlie laws of Minos. The education wliicli tlie children 
receive renders the body healthy and robust. They are ac- 
customed, from the first, to a frugal and laborious life ; it is 
supposed that all the pleasures of sense enervate the body 
and the mind ; no other pleasure is presented to them but 
that of being invincible by virtue, that of acquiring much 

glory there they punish three vices which go 

unpunished amongst other people— ingratitude, dissimula- 
tion, and avarice. As to pomp and dissipation, there is 
no need to punish these, for they are unknown in Crete. 

No costly furniture, no magnificent clothing, 

DO delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are allowed." 

It is tlins that Mentor prepares his scholar to 
mould and manipulate, doubtless with the most 
philanthropic intentions, the people of Ithaca, 
and, to confirm him in these ideas, he gives him 
the example of Salentum. 

It is thus that we receive our iirst political 
notions. We are taught to treat men very much 
as Oliver de Serres teaches farmers to manage 
and to mix the soil. 

Montesquieu. — "To sustain the spirit of commerce, it is 
necessary that all the laws should favor it ; that these same 
laws, by their regulations in dividing the fortunes in pro- 
portion as commerce enlarges them, should place every poor 
citizen in sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to 
work like the others, and every rich citizen in such medioc- 
rity that he must work, in order to retain or to acquire." 

Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes. 
''Although, in a democracy, real equality is the soul of 



THE LAW. 259 

the State, yet it is so difficult to establisli, that an extreme 
exactness in this matter would not always be desirable. It 
is sufficient that a census be established to reduce or fix 
the differences to a certain point. After which it is for 
particular laws to equalize, as it were, the inequality, by 
burdens imposed upon the rich, and reliefs granted to the 
poor." 

Here, again, we see the equalization of fortunes 
hy law, that is, by force. 

" There were, in Greece, two kinds of republics. One was 
military, as Lacedaemon ; the other commercial, as Athens. 
In the one it "^as wished (by whom ?) that the citizens 
should be idle : in the other, the love of labor was encour- 
aged. 

** It is worth our while to pay a little attention to the ex- 
tent of genius required by these legislators, that we may see 
how, by confounding all the virtues, they showed their 
wisdom to the world. Lycurgus, blending theft with the 
spirit of justice, the hardest slavery with extreme liberty, 
the most atrocious sentiments with the greatest moderation, 
gave stability to his city. He seemed to deprive 1 fc of all its 
resources, arts, commerce, money, and walls ; there was am- 
bition without the hope of rising ; there were natural senti- 
ments where the individual was neither child, nor husband, 
nor father. Chastity even was deprived of modesty. By 
' this road Sparta was led on to grandeur and to glory. 

" The phenomenon which we observe in the institutions of 
Greece has been seen in the midst of the degeneracy and 
corruption of our modern times. An honest legislator has 
formed a people where probity has appeared as natural as 
bravery among the Spartans. William Penn was a true 
Lycurgus ; and although the former had peace for his ob- 
ject, and the latter war, they resemble each other in the 
singular path along which they have led their people, in 



260 THE LAW. 

their influence over free men, in tlie prejudices whicli they 
have overcome, tlie passions they have subdued. 

" Paraguay furnishes us with anotlier example. Society 
has been accused of tlie crime of regarding the pleasure of 
commanding as the only good of life ; but it will always be 
a noble thing to govern men by making them happy. 

' ' Those iclio desire to form similar institutions, will estab- 
lish community of property, as in the republic of Plato ; the 
same reverence which he enjoined for the gods, separation 
from strangers for the preservation of morality, and make 
the city and not the citizens create commerce : they should 
give our arts without our luxury, our wants without our 
desires." 

"Vulgar infatuation may exclaim, if it likes : 
" It is Montesquieu ! magnificent ! sublime ! " I 
am not afraid to express my opinion, and to say : 
*' What ! you have the face to call that fine ? 
It is frightful ! it is abominable ! and these ex- 
tracts, which I might multiply, show that, accord- 
ing to Montesquieu, the persons, the liberties, the 
property, mankind itself, are nothing but mate- 
rials to exercise the sagacity of lawgivers." 

Rousseaxi. — Although this politician, the para- 
mount authority of French Democracy, makes the 
social edifice rest upon the general will^ no one 
has so completely admitted the hypothesis of the 
entire passiveness of human nature in the pres- 
ence of the lawgiver : — 

"If it is true that a great prince is a rare thing, how 
much more so must a great lawgiver be ? The former has 



THE LAW. 201 

only to follow tlie pattern proposed to liim by tlie latter. 
This latter is the mechanician who invents the machine ; the 
former is merely the workman who sets it in motion." 

And what part have men to act in all this ? 
That of the machine, which is set in motion ; or, 
rather, are they not the brute matter of which the 
machine is made? Thus, between the legislator 
and the prince, between the prince and his sub- 
jects, there are the same relations as those which 
exist between the agricultural writer and the 
agriculturist, the agriculturist and the clod. At 
what a vast height, then, is the politician placed, 
who rules over learislators themselves, and teaches 
them their trade in such imperative terms as the 
followino: : — 



'to 



"Would you give consistency to the State? Bring the 
extremes together as much as possible. Suffer neither 
wealthy persons nor beggars. ' 

" If the soil is poor and barren, or the country too much 
confined for the inhabitants, turn to industry and the arts, 
whose productions you will exchange for the provisions which 

you require On a good soil, if you are short 

of inhabitants, give all your attention to agriculture, which 
multiplies men, and banish the arts, which only serve to de- 
populate the country Pay attention to exten- 
sive and convenient coasts. Cover the sea with vessels, and 
you will have a brilliant and short existence. If your seas 
wash only inaccessible rocks, let the people he barbarous, and 
eat fish ; they will live more quietly, perhaps better, and, 
most certainly, more happily. In short, besides those maxims 
which are common to all, every people has its own particu- 



262 THE LAW. 

lar circumstances, wliicli demand a legislation peculiar to 
itself. 

"It was tlius that the Hebrews formerly, and the Arabs 
more recently, had religion for their principal object ; 
that of the Athenians was literature ; that of Carthage and 
Tyre, commerce ; of Rhodes, naval affairs ; of Sparta, war ; 
and of Rome, virtue. The author of the ' Spirit of Laws ' 
has shown the art ly which the legislator should frame his in- 
stitutions toward each of these objects But if 

the legislator, mistaking his object, should take up a prin- 
ciple different from that which arises from the nature of 
things ; if one should tend to slavery, and the other to 
liberty ; if one to wealth, and the other to population ; one 
to peace and the other to conquests ; the laws will insen- 
sibly become enfeebled, the Constitution will be impaired, 
and the State will be subject to incessant agitations until it 
is destroyed, or becomes changed, and invincible Nature 
regains her empire." 

But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain 
its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it 
had no need of the legislator to gain its empire 
from the beginning? 'Why does he not allow 
tliat, by obeying their ovvn impulse, men would, 
of themselves, apply agriculture to a fertile dis- 
trict, and commerce to extensive and commodious 
coasts, without the interference of a Lycurgus, a 
Solon, or a Rousseau, who would undertake it at 
the risk of deceiving themselves f 

Be that as it may, we see with what a terrible 
responsibility Rousseau invests inventors, institu- 
tors, conductors, and manipulators of societies. 



THE LAW. 263 

He is, therefore, very exacting with regard to 
them. 

" He who dares to undertake the institutions of a people 
ouglit to feel that he can, as it were, transform every indi- 
vidual, who is by himself a perfect and solitary whole, re- 
ceiving his life and being from a larger whole of which he 
forms a part ; he must feel that he can change the constitu- 
tion of man, to fortify it, and substitute a partial and moral 
existence for the physical and independent one which we 
have all received from nature. In a word, he must deprive 
man of his own powers, to give him others which are foreign 
to him." 

Poor human nature ! "What would become of 
its dignity if it were intrusted to the disciples of 
Kousseau ? 

Baynal. — " The climate, that is, the air and the soil, is 
the first element for the legislator. His resources prescribe 
to him his duties. First, he must consult Jiis local position. 
A population dwelling upon maritime shores must have laws 

fitted for navigation If the colony is located 

in an inland region, a legislator must provide for the nature 
of the soil, and for its degree of fertility 

" It is more especially in the distribution of property that 
the wisdom of legislation will appear. As a general rule, 
and in every country, when a new colony is founded, land 
should be given to each man sufficient for the support of 
his family 

"In an uncultivated island, which you are colonizing 
with children, it will only be needful to let the germs of 

truth expand in the developments of reason ! 

But when you establish old people in a new country, the 
skill consists in only allowing it those injurious opinions and 
customs which it is impossible to cure and correct. If you 



264 THE LAW. 

wisli to prevent tliem from being' perpetuated, you will act 
upon the rising generation by a general and public educa- 
tion of the children. A prince, or legislator, ought never to 
found a colony without previously sending wise men there 

to instruct the youth In a new colony, every 

facility is open to the precautions of the legislator who de- 
sires to purify the tone and the manners of the people. If he 
has genius and virtue, the lands and the men which are at his 
disposal will inspire his soul with a plan of society which a 
writer can only vaguely trace, and in a way which would be 
subject to the instability of all hypotheses, which are varied 
and complicated by an infinity of circumstances too diflficult 
to foresee and to combine." 

One would tliiiik it was a professor of agricul- 
ture who was saying to his pupils : ^' The climate is 
the only rule for the agriculturist. Ills resources 
dictate to him his duties. The first thing he 
has to consider is his local position. If he is on 
a clayey soil, he must do so and so. If he has to 
contend with sand, tliis is the way in which he 
must set about it. Every facility is open to the 
agriculturist who wishes to clear and improve his 
soil. If he only has the skill, the manure which 
he has at his disposal will suggest to him a plan 
of operation, which a professor can only vaguely 
trace, and in a way that would be subject to the 
uncertainty of all hypotheses, which vary and are 
complicated by an infinity of circumstances too 
difficult to foresee and to combine." 

But, oh ! sublime writers, deign to remember 



THE LAW. 265 

sometimes that this clay, this sand, this manure, 
of which you are disposing in so arbitrary a man- 
ner, are men, your equals, intelligent and free 
beings like yourselves, who liave received from 
God, as you have, the faculty of seeing, of fore- 
seeing, of thinking, and of judging for them- 
selves ! 

Mcobly. — (He is supposing the laws to be worn 
out by time and by the neglect of security, and 
continues thus) : — 

" Under these circumstances we must be convinced that 
the springs of Government are relaxed. Oive them a new 
tension (it is the reader who is addressed), and the evil will 

be remedied Think less of punishing the 

faults than of encouraging the virtues which you want. By 
this method you will bestow upon your republic the vigor of 
youth. Through ignorance of this, a free people has lost its 
liberty ! But if the evil has made so much way that the 
ordinary magistrates are unable to remedy it effectually, liatie 
recourse to an extraordinary magistracy, whose time should 
be short, and its power considerable. The imagination of the 
citizens requires to be impressed." 

In this style he goes on through twenty vol- 
umes. 

There was a time when, under the influence of 
teaching like this, which is the root of classical 
education, every one was for placing himself be- 
yond and above mankind, for the sake of arrang- 
ing, organizing, and instituting it in his own way. 

Condillac. — " Take upon yourself, my lord, the charactet 
12 



266 THE LAW. 

of Lycurgus or of Solon. Before you finish reading tliis 
essay, amuse yourself witli giving laws to some wild people 
in America or in Africa. Establisli these roving mien in fixed 
dwellings ; teach them to keep flocks. ..... Endeavor 

t5 develop the social qualities which nature has implanted in 

them Make them begin to practice the duties 

of humanity Cause the pleasures of the 

passions to become distasteful to them by punishments, and 
you will see these barbarians, with every plan of your legis- 
lation, lose a vice and gain a virtue. 

" All these people have had laws. But few among them 
have been happy. Why is this ? Because legislators have 
almost always been ignorant of the object of society, which 
is, to unite families by a common interest. 

"Impartiality in law consists in two things : in establish- 
ing equality in the fortunes and in the dignity of the citizens. 
In proportion to the degree of equality estab- 
lished by the laws, the dearer will they become to every 

citizen How can avarice, ambition, dissipation 

idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy, agitate mien who 
are equal in fortune and dignity, and to whom the laws leave 
no hope of disturbing their equality ? 

" What has been told you of the republic of Sparta ought 
to enlighten you on this question. No other State has had 
laws more in accordance with the order of nature or of 
equality." 

It is not to be wondered at that the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries should have looked upon 
the human race as inert matter, ready to receive 
everything, form, figure, impulse, movement, and 
life, from a great prince, or a great legislator, or a 
great genius. These ages were reared in the study 
of antiquity, and antiquity presents everywhere, in 



THE LAW. 267 

Egypt, Persia, Greece, and Rome, the spectacle of a 
few men moulding mankind according to tlieir 
fancy, and mankind to this end enslaved by force or 
by impostm^e. And what does this prove? That 
because men and society are improvable, error, igno- 
rance, despotism, slavery, and superstition must be 
more prevalent in early times. The mistake of 
the writers quoted above is not that they have as- 
serted this fact, but that they have proposed it, as 
a rule, for the admiration and imitation of future 
generations. Their mistake has been, with an in- 
conceivable absence of discernment, and upon the 
faith of a puerile conventionalism, that they have 
admitted what is inadmissible, viz., the grandeur, 
dignity, morality, and well-being of the artificial 
societies of the ancient world ; they have not under- 
stood that time produces and spreads enlighten- 
ment ; and that in proportion to the increase of 
enlightenment, right ceases to be upheld by force, 
and society regains possession of herself. 

And, in fact, what is the political work which 
we are endeavoring to promote ? It is no other 
than the instinctive effort of every people toward 
liberty. And what is liberty, whose name can 
make every heart beat, and which can agitate the 
world, but the union of all liberties, the liberty of 
conscience, of instruction, of association, of the 
press, of locomotion, of labor, and of exchange ; in 



268 THE LAW. 

other words, the free exercise, for all, of all the 
inoffensive faculties; and again, in other words, 
the destruction of all despotisms, even of legal 
despotism, and the reduction of law to its only 
rational sphere, which is to regulate the individual 
right of legitimate defense, or to repress injustice. 

This tendency of tlie human race, it must be 
admitted, is greatly thwarted, particularly in 
France, by the fatal disposition common to all 
politicians, of placing themselves beyond mankind, 
to arrange, organize, and regulate it, according to 
their fancy. 

For whilst society is struggling to realize liberty, 
the great men who place themselves at its head, 
imbued with the principles of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, think only of subjecting it to 
tlie philanthropic despotism of their social inven- 
tions, and making it bear wdth docility, according 
to the expression of Rousseau, the 3^oke of public 
felicity, as pictured in their own imaginations. 

This was particularly the case in France in 1789. 
No sooner was the old system destroyed, than 
society was to be submitted to other artificial 
arrangements, always with the same starting-point 
— the omnipotence of the law. 

Saint Just. — ' ' The legislator commands the future. It is 
for him to will for the good of mankind. It is for him to 
make men what he wishes them to be." 



THE LAW. 269 

Robespierre. — " The function of Government is to direct the 
physical and moral powers of the nation toward the object 
of its institution." 

Billaud Varennes. — " A people who are to be restored to 
liberty must be formed anew. Ancient prejudices must be 
destroyed, antiquated customs changed, depraved affections 
corrected, inveterate vices eradicated. For this a strong force 
and a vehement impulse will be necessary Citi- 
zens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm 
basis of the Spartan republic. The feeble and trusting dispo- 
sition of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel 
contains the whole science of Government." 

Lepelletier. — " Considering the extent of human degrada- 
tion, I am convinced of the necessity of effecting an entire 
regeneration of the race, and, if I may so express myself, of 
creating a new people." 

Men, therefore, are nothing but raw material. 
It is not for them to will their own iinproveinent. 
They are not capable of it ; according to Saint 
Just, it is only the legislator who is. Men are 
merely to be what he wills that they should be. 
According to Kobespierre, who copies Rousseau 
literally, the legislator is to begin by assigning the 
aim of the institutions of the nation. After this, 
the Government has only to direct all ii^ physical 
and moral forces toward this end. All this time 
the nation itself is to remain perfectly passive ; and 
Billaud Yarennes would teach us that it ought to 
have no prejudices, affections, nor wants, but such 
as are authorized by the legislator. He even goes 



270 THE LAW. 

SO far as to say tliat the inflexible austerity of a 
man is the basis of a republic. 

We have seen that, in cases where the evil is so 
great that the ordinary magistrates are unable to 
remedy it, Mably recommends a dictatorship, to 
promote virtue. " Save recourse^'^ says he, " to 
an extraordinary magistracy, whose time shall be 
short, and his power considerable. The imagina- 
tion of the people requires to be impressed." This 
doctrine has not been neglected. Listen to Robes- 
pierre : — 

" The principle of tlie Republican Government is virtue, 
and the means to be adopted during its establishment is ter- 
ror. We want to substitute, in our country, morality for 
egotism, probity for honor, principles for customs, duties for 
decorum, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, 
contempt of vice for contempt of misfortune, pride for inso- 
lence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of 
money, good people for good company, merit for intrigue, 
genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for 
the weariness of pleasure, the greatness of man for the little- 
ness of the great, a magnanimous, powerful, happy people 
for one that is easy, frivolous, degraded ; that is to say, we 
would substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic 
for all the vices and absurdities of monarchy." 

At what a vast height above the rest of mankind 
does Kobespierre place himself here 1 And observe 
the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not 
content with expressing a desire for a great reno- 
vation of the human heart, he does not even expect 



THE LAW. 271 

such a result from a regular Government. No; 
he intends to effect it himself, and by means of 
terror. The object of the discourse from which 
this puerile and laborious mass of antithesis is ex- 
tracted was, to exhibit the p?'{ncij)les of morality 
which ought to direct a revolutionary Government, 
Moreover, when Kobespierre asks for a dictator- 
ship, it is not merely for the purpose of repelling 
a foreign enemy, or of putting down factions ; it 
is that he may establish, by means of terror, and as 
a preliminary to the game of the Constitution, his 
own principles of morality. He pretends to nothing 
short of extirpating from the country, by means 
of terror, egotism, honor, customs ^ decorum, fashion, 
'vanity, the love of money, good company, intrigue, 
wit, luxury, and misery. It is not until after he, 
Robespierre, shall have accomplished these mira- 
cles, as he rightly calls them, that he will allow 
the law to regain her empire. Truly, it would be 
well if these visionaries — who think so much of 
themselves and so little of mankind, who want to 
renew everything — would only be content with try- 
ing to reform themselves ; the task would be ardu- 
ous enough for them. In general, however, these 
gentlemen, the reformers, legislators, and politi- 
cians, do not desire to exercise an immediate des- 
potism over mankind. J^o, they are too moderate 
and too philanthropic for that. They only con- 



272 THE lAW. 

tend for the despotism, the absolutism, the om- 
nipotence of the law. They aspire only to make 
the law. 

To show how universal this strange disposition 
has been in France, I had need not only to have 
copied the whole of the works of Mably, E-aynal, 
Housseau, Fenelon, and to have made long extracts 
from Bossuet and Montesquieu, but to have given 
the entire transactions of the sittings of the French 
Convention of 1789. I shall do no such thing, 
however, but merely refer the reader to them. 

It is not to be wondered at that this idea should 
have suited Buonaparte exceedingly well. He 
embraced it with ardor, and pat it in practice with 
energy. Playing the part of a chemist, Europe 
was to him the material for his experiments. But 
this material reacted against him. More than half 
undeceived, Buonaparte, at St. Helena, seemed to 
admit that there is an initiative in ev^ery people^ 
' and he became less hostile to liberty. Yet this did 
not prevent him from giving this lesson to his son 
in his will : ^' To govern, is to diffuse morality, 
education, and w^ ell-being." 

After all this, I hardly need show, by fastidious 
quotations, the opinions of Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, 
Saint Simon, and Fourier. I shall confine myself 
to a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the 
organization of labor. 



THE LAW. 273 

"In our project society receives the impulse of 
power." (Page 126.) 

In what does the impulse which power gives to 
society consist ? In imposing upon it the project 
of M. Louis Blanc. 

On the other hand, society is the human race. 
The human race, then, is to receive its impulse 
from ~M.. Louis Blanc. 

It is at liberty to do so or not, it will be said. 
Of course the human race is at liberty to take ad- 
vice from anybody, whoever it may be. But this 
is not the way in which M. Louis Blanc under- 
stands the thing. He means that liis project 
should be converted into law, and, consequently, 
forcibly imposed by power. 

** In our project the State lias only to give a legislation to 
labor, by means of wliick tlie industrial movement may and 
ought to be accomplished in all liberty. It (the State) merely 
places society on an incline {that is all) that it may descend, 
when once it is placed there, by the mere force of things, 
and by the natural course of the established mechanis7n." 

But what is this incline ? One indicated by 
M. Louis Blanc. Does it not lead to an abyss ? 
]^o, it leads to happiness. Why, then, does not 
society go there of itself ? Because it does not 
know what it wants, and it requires an impulse. 
What is to give it this impulse ? Power. And 
who is to give the impulse to power ? The inven- 
tor of the machine, M. Louis Blanc. 



274 THE LAW. 

"We shall never get out of this circle — mankind 
passive, and a great man moving it by the inter- 
vention of the law. 

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some- 
thing like liberty ? Without a doubt. And what 
is liberty ? 

" Once for all, liberty consists, not only in tlie right 
granted, but in the power given to man, to exercise, to de- 
velop his faculties under the empire of justice, and under 
the protection of the law. 

" And this is no vain distinction ; there is a deep meaning 
in it, and its consequences are not to be estimated. For when 
once it is admitted that man, to be truly free, must have the 
power to exercise and develop his faculties, it follows that 
every member of society has a claim upon it for such instruc- 
tion as shall enable it to display itself, and for the instru- 
ments of labor, without which human activity can find no 
scope. Now, by whose intervention is society to give to each 
of its members the requisite instruction and the necessary 
instruments of labor, unless by that of the State 1" 

Thus, liberty is power. In what does this 
power consist ? In possessing instruction and in- 
struments of labor. Who is to give instruction 
and instruments of labor ? Society, wJio owes 
them. By whose intervention is society to give 
instruments of labor to those who do not possess 
them ? By the intervention of the State. From 
whom is the State to obtain them ? 

It is for the reader to answer this question, and 
to notice whither all this tends. 



THE -LAW. 275 

One of the strangest pllenomena of onr time, 
and one which will probably be a matter of aston- 
ishment to our descendants, is the doctrine which 
is founded upon this triple hypothesis : the radical 
passiveness of mankind, the omnipotence of the 
law, the infallibility of the legislator ; this is the 
sacred symbol of the party which proclaims itself 
exclusively democratic. 

It is true that it professes also to be social. 

So far as it is democratic, it has an unlimited 
faith in mankind. 

So far as it is social, it places it beneath the mud. 

Are political rights under discussion ? Is a 
legislator to be chosen ? Oh ! then the people 
possess science by instinct; they are gifted with 
an admirable tact ; t/ieir willis always right / the 
general will cannot err. Suffrage cannot be too 
universal. Nobody is under any responsibility to 
society. The will and the capacity to choose well 
are taken for granted. Can the people be mis- 
taken ? Are we not livino^ in an as^e of enliHiten- 
ment? What! are the people to be always kept 
in leading-strings ? Have they not acquired their 
rights at the cost of effort and sacrifice ? Have 
they not given sufficient proof of intelligence and 
wisdom % Are they not arrived at maturity ? Are 
they not in a state to judge for themselves ? Do 
they not know their own interest? Is there a 



276 THE LAW. 

man or a class wlio would dare to claim the right 
of putting himself in the place of the people, of 
deciding and of acting for them ? ITo, no ; the 
people would be free^ and they shall be so. 
They wish to conduct their own affairs, and they 
shall do so. 

But when once the legislator is duly elected, 
then indeed the style of his speech alters. The 
nation is sent back into passiveness, inertness, 
nothingness, and the legislator takes possession of 
omnipotence. It is for him to invent, for him to 
dii-ect, for him to impel, for him to organize. 
Mankind has nothing to do but to submit ; the 
hour of despotism has struck. And we must ob- 
serve that this is decisive; for the people, just 
before so enlightened, so moral, so perfect, have 
no inclinations at all, or, if they have any, they 
all lead them downwards toward degradation. 
And yet they ought to have a little liberty ! But 
are we not assured, by M. Considerant, that liherty 
leads fatally to monojpoly ? Are we not told that 
liberty is competition, and that competition, ac- 
cording to M. Louis Blanc, is a system of extermi- 
nation for the people^ and of ruination for trade f 
For that reason people are exterminated and ruined 
in proportion as they are free ; take, for example, 
Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United 
States 1 Does not M. Louis Blanc tell us again 



THE LAW. 277 

that competition leads to monopoly^ and that^ for 
the same reason^ cheapness leads to exorbitant 
prices f That competition tends to drain the sources 
of Gonsiimption^ and urges production to a destruc- 
tive activity f That competition forces production 
to increase,, and consumption to decrease? whence 
it follows that free people produce for the sake of 
not consuming ; that there is nothing but oppres- 
sion and madness among them ; and that it is 
absolutely necessary for M. Louis Blanc to see 
to it ! 

"What sort of liberty should be allowed to men ? 
Liberty of conscience % But we should see them 
all profiting by the permission to become atheists. 
Liberty of education % But parents would be pay- 
ing professors to teach their sons immorality and 
error ; besides, if we are to believe M. Thiers, edu- 
cation, if left to the national liberty, would cease 
to be national, and we should be educating our 
children in the ideas of the Turks or .Hindoos, 
instead of which they have the good fortune to be 
educated in the noble ideas of the Romans. Lib- 
erty of labor ? But this is only competition, whoso 
effect is to leave all productions unconsumed, to 
exterminate the people, and to ruin the tradesmen. 
The liberty of exchange ? But it is well known 
that the protectionists have shown, over and over 
again, that a man must be ruined when he ex- 



278 THE LAW. 

changes freelj^, and that to become ricli it is neces- 
sary to exchange without liberty. Liberty of 
association ? But, according to the socialist doc- 
trine, liberty and association exclude "each other, 
for the liberty of men is attacked just to force 
them to associate. 

You must see, then, that the socialist democrats 
cannot in conscience allow men any liberty, be- 
cause, by their own nature, they tend in every 
instance to all kinds of degradation and demoral- 
ization. 

We are therefore left to conjecture, in this case, 
upon what foundation universal suffrage is claimed 
for them with so much importunity. 

The pretensions of organizers suggest another 
question, which I have often asked them, and to 
which I am not aware that I ever received an 
answer : Since the natural tendencies of mankind 
are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, 
how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organ- 
izers are always good ? Do not the legislators and 
their agents form a part of the human race ? Do 
they consider that they are composed of different 
materials from the rest of mankind? They say 
that society, when left to itself, rushes to inevit- 
able destruction, because its instincts are perverse. 
They pretend to stop it in its downward course, 
and to give it a better direction. They have, 



THE LAW. 279 

therefore, received from heaven intelligence and 
virtues which place them beyond and above man- 
kind. Let them show their title to this superior- 
ity. They would be onr shepherds, and we are to 
be their flock. This arrangement presupposes in 
them a natural superiority, the right to which we 
are fully justified in calling upon them to prove. 

You must observe that I am not contendino^ 
against their right to invent social combinations, 
to propagate them, to recommend them, and to 
try them upon themselves, at their own expense 
and risk ; but I do dispute their right to impose 
them upon us through the medium of the law, 
that is, by force and by public taxes. 

I would not insist upon the Cabetists, the Fou- 
rierists, the Proudhonians, the Universitaries, and 
the Protectionists renouncing their own particular 
ideas ; I would only have them renounce that idea 
which is common to them all — viz., tliat of sub- 
jecting us by force to their own groups and series, 
to their social workshops, to their bank for lending 
money without interest, to their Grgeco-Pomano 
morality, and to their commercial restrictions. I 
would ask them to allow us the faculty of judging 
of their plans, and not to oblige us to adopt them, 
if. we find that ihej hurt our interests or are re- 
pugnant to our consciences. 

To presume to have recourse to power and tax- 



280 THE LAW. 

ation, besides being oppressive and unjust, implies, 
further, the injurious supposition that the organ- 
izer is infallible, and mankind incompetent. 

And if mankind is not competent to judge for 
itself, why do they talk so much about universal 
suffrage ? 

Tliis contradiction in ideas is unhappily to be 
found also in facts ; and whilst the French nation 
has claimed precedence overall others in obtaining 
its rights, or rather its political claims, this has by 
no means prevented it from being more governed, 
and directed, and imposed upon, and fettered, and 
cheated, than any other nation. It is also the one, 
of all others, where revolutions are constantly to 
be dreaded, and it is perfectly natural that it should 
be so. 

So long as this idea is retained, which is admit- 
ted by all our politicians, and so energetically ex- 
pressed by M. Louis Blanc in these words, 
" Society receives its impulse from power ; " so 
long as men consider themselves as capable of 
feeling, yet passive ; incapable of raising them- 
selves by their own discernment and by their own 
energy to any morality or well-being, while 
they expect everything from the law ; in a word, 
while they admit that their relations with the State 
are the same as those of the flock with the shep- 
herd, it is clear that the responsibility of power is 



THE LAW. 281 

immense. Fortune and misfortune, wealth and 
destitution, equality and inequality, all proceed 
from it. It is charged with everything, it under- 
takes everything, it does everything ; therefore it 
has to answer for everything. If we are happy, it 
has a right to claim our gratitude ; but if we are mis- 
erable, it alone must bear the blame. Are not our 
persons and property, in fact, at its disposal ? Is not 
the law omnipotent? In regulating industry, it has 
engaged to make it prosper, otherwise it would have 
been absurd to deprive it of its liberty ; and if it 
suffers, whose fault is it ? In pretending to adjust 
the balance of commerce by the game of tariff's, it 
engages to make it prosper ; and if, so far from 
prospering, it is destroyed, whose fault is it ? In 
granting its protection to maritime instrumental- 
ities in exchange for free navigation, it has en- 
gaged to render them lucrative ; if these restric- 
tions become burdensome, whose fault is it ? 

Thus, there is not a grievance in the nation for 
which the Government does not voluntarily make 
itself responsible. Is it to be wondered at that 
every failure threatens to cause a revolution? 

And what is the remedy proposed ? To extend 
indefinitely the dominion of the law, i.e.^ the re- 
sponsibility of Government. But if the Govern- 
ment engages to raise and to regulate wages, and 
is not able to do it ; if it engages to assist all those 



282 THE LAW. 

who are in want, and is not able to do it; if it 
engages to provide an asjlum for every laborer, 
and is not able to do it ; if it engages to offer to 
all sncli as are eager to borrow, gratuitous credit, 
and is not able to do it; if, in words which we 
regret should have escaped tbe pen of M. de La- 
martine, " the State considers that its mission is to 
enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to 
spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people," 
— if it fails in this, is it not evident that after 
every disappointment, which, alas ! is moi*e than 
probable, there will be a no less inevitable revo- 
lution ? 

I shall now resume the subject by remarking 
that immediately after the economical part "^ of the 
question, and at the entrance of the political part, 
a leading question presents itself. It is the fol- 
lowing : — 

What is law ? "What ought it to be ? What is 
its domain ? What are its limits ? Where, in fact, 
does the prerogative of the legislator stop ? 

I have no hesitation in answering. Law is com- 
T/ion force organized to prevent injustice j in short, 
Law is Justice. 

* Political economy precedes politics: the former lias to 
discover whether human interests are harmonious or antago- 
nistic, a fact which must have been decided upon before 
politics can determine the prerogatives of Government. 



THE LAW. 283 

It is not true that the legislator has absolute 
power over our persons and property, since they 
pre-exist, and his work is only to secure them from 
injury. 

It is not true that the mission of the law is to 
regulate our consciences, our ideas, our will, our 
education, our sentiments, our works, our ex- 
changes, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is 
to prevent the rights of one from interfering with 
those of another in any one of these things. 

Law, because it has force for its necessary sanc- 
tion, can only have as its lawful domain the do- 
main of force, which is justice. 

And as every individual has a right to have 
recourse to force only in cases of lawful defense, 
so collective force, which is only the union of 
individual forces, cannot be rationally used for any 
other end. 

The law, then, is solely the organization of indi- 
vidual rights, which existed before legitimate 
defense. 

Law is justice. 

So far from being able to oppress the persons of 
the people, or to plunder their property, even for 
a philanthropic end, its mission is to protect the 
former, and to secure to them the possession of 
the latter. 

It must not be said, either, that it may be phil- 



284 THE LAW. 

anthropic, so long as it abstains from all oppres- 
sion; for this is a contradiction. The law cannot 
avoid acting upon our persons and property ; if it 
does not secure them, it violates them if it touches 
them. 

The law is justice. 

IN^o thing can be more clear and simple, more 
perfectly defined and bounded, or more visible to 
every eye ; for justice is a given quantity, im- 
mutable and unchangeable, and which admits of 
neither increase nor dhninution. 

Depart from this point, make the law religious, 
fraternal, equalizing, industrial, literary, or artis- 
tic, and you will be lost in vagueness and uncer- 
tainty ; you will be upon unknown ground, in a 
forced Utopia, or, wdiich is worse, in the midst of 
a multitude of Utopias, striving to gain possession 
of the lav^, and to impose it upon you ; for frater- 
nity and philanthropy have no fixed limits, like 
justice. Where will you stop ? Where is the law 
to stop ? One person will only extendliis philan- 
thropy to some of the industrial classes, and will 
require the law to influence the consumers in 
fa^or of the producers. Another, like M. Con- 
siderant, will take up the cause of the working 
classes, and claim for them by means of the law^, 
at a fixed rate, clothing, lodging, food, and every' 
thing necessary for the support of life, A third, 



\ 



THE LAW. 285 

as M. Louis Blanc, will say, and with reason, that 
this would be an incomplete fraternity, and that 
the law ought to provide them with instruments 
of labor and the means of instruction. A fourth 
will observe that such an arrano^ement still leaves 
room for inequality, and that the law ought to 
introduce into the most remote hamlets luxury, 
literature, and the arts. This is the hio^h road to 
communism ; in other words, legislation will be — 
what it now is — the battle-field for everybody's 
dreams and everybody's covetousness. 

Law is justice. 

In this proposition we represent to ourselves a 
simple, immovable Government. And I defy any 
one to tell me whence the thought of a revolution, 
an insurrection, or a simple disturbance could arise 
against a public force confined to the repression of 
injustice. Under such a system there would be 
more well-being, and this well-being would be 
more equally distributed; and as to the sufferings 
inseparable from humanity, no one would think 
of accusing the Government of them, for it would 
be as innocent of them as it is of the variations of 
the temperature. Have the people ever been 
known to rise against the court of appeals, or 
assail the justices of the peace, for the sake of claim- 
ing the rate of wages, gratuitous credit, instru- 
ments of labor, the advantages of the tariff, or the 



286 THE LAW. 

social workshop? They know perfectly well that 
these combinations are beyond the jurisdiction of 
the justices of the peace, and they would soon 
learn that they are not within the jurisdiction of 
the law. 

But if the law were to be made npon the prin- 
ciple of fraternity, if it were to be proclaimed that 
from it proceed all benefits and all evils, that it 
is responsible for every individual grievance and 
for every social inequality, then you open the 
door to an endless succession of complaints, irrita- 
tions, troubles, and revolutions. 

Law is justice. 

And it would be very strange if it could prop- 
erly be anything else ! Is not justice right ? Are 
not rights equal ? With what show of right can 
the law interfere to subject me to the social plans 
of Smith, Jones, and Robinson, rather than to 
subject these gentlemen to my plans ? Is it to be 
supposed that nature has not bestowed upon me 
sufficient imagination to invent a Utopia too % Is 
it for the law to make choice of one amongst so 
many fancies, and to make use of the public force 
in its service ? 

Law is justice. 

And let it not be said, as it continually is, that 
the law, in this sense, would be atheistic, individ- 
ual, and heartless, and that it would make mankind 



THE LAW. 287 

wear its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, 
quite worth}'' of the governmental infatuation 
whi(jh sees mankind in the law. 

What then? Does it follow, that if we are 
free, we shall cease to act ? Does it follow, that 
if we do not receive an impulse from the law, we 
shall receive no impulse at all ? Does it follow, 
that if the law confines itself to securing to us the 
free exercise of our faculties, our faculties will be 
paralyzed ? Does it follow, that if the law does 
not impose upon us forms of religion, modes of 
association, methods of instruction, rules for labor, 
directions for exchange, and plans for charity, 
we shall plunge eagerly into atheism, isolation, 
ignorance, misery, and egotism? Does it follow, 
that we shall no longer recognize the power and 
£:oodness of God ; that we shall cease to associate 
together, to help each other, to love and assist our 
unfortunate brethren, to study the secrets of 
nature, and to aspire after perfection in our exist- 
ence ? 

Law is justice. 

And it is under the law of justice, under the 
reign of right, under the influence of liberty, se- 
curity, stability, and responsibility, that every man 
will attain to the measure of his worth, to all the 
dignity of his being, and that mankind will accom- 
plish, with order and with calmness — slowly, it 



288 THE LAW, 

is true, but with certainty — the progress decreed 
to it. 

I believe that my theory is correct; for what- 
ever be the question upon which I am arguing, 
whether it be reh'gious, philosophical, political, or 
economical ; whether it affects well-being, morality, 
equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, 
property, labor, exchange, capital, wages, taxes, 
population, credit, or Government ; at whatever 
point of the scientific horizon I start from, I in- 
variably come to the same thing — the solution of 
the social problem is in liberty. 

And have I not experience on my side ? Cast 
your eye over the globe. Which are the happiest, 
the most moral, and the most peaceable nations ? 
Those where the law interferes the least with pri- 
vate activity ; where the Government is the least 
felt ; where individuality has the most scope, and 
public opinion the most influence ; where the ma- 
chinery of the administration is the least important 
and the least complicated ; where taxation is light- 
est and least unequal, popular discontent the least 
excited and the least justifiable; where the respon- 
sibility of individuals and classes is the most ac- 
tive, and where, consequently, if morals are not 
in a perfect state, at any rate they tend incessantly 
to correct themselves; where transactions, meet- 
ings, and associations are the least fettered ; where 



THE LAW. 289 

labor, capital, and production suffer the least from 
artificial displacements ; where mankind follows 
most completely its own natural course ; where 
the thought of God prevails the most over the in- 
ventions of men; those, in short, who realize the 
most nearly this idea : That, within the limits of 
right, all human transactions should flow from the 
free, perfectible, and voluntary action of man ; 
nothing be attempted by the law or by force, ex- 
cept the administration of universal justice. 

I cannot avoid coming to this conclusion — that 
there are too many great men in the world ; there 
are too many legislators, organizers, institntors 
of societ}^, conductors of the people, fathers of na- 
tions, etc., etc. Too many persons place them- 
selves above mankind, to rule and patronize it ; 
too many persons make a trade of attending to it. 
It will be answered : "You yourself are occupied 
upon it all this time." Yery true. But it must 
be admitted that it is in another sense entirely 
that I am speaking ; and if I join the reformers, it 
is solely for the purpose of inducing them to relax 
their hold. 

I am not doing as the inventor Yaucauson did 
with his automaton, but as a physiologist does with 
the organization of the human frame ; I would 
study and admire it. 

I am acting with regard to it in the spirit which 
13 



290 THE LAW. 

animated a celebrated traveler. He found him- 
self in the midst of a savage tribe. A child liad 
just been born, and a crowd of soothsayers, ma- 
gicians, and quacks were around it, armed with 
rings, hooks, and bandages. One said, " This 
child will never smell the perfume of a calumet, 
unless I stretch liis nostrils." Another said, " He 
will be without the sense of hearing, unless 1 draw 
his ears down to his shoulders." A third said, 
" He will never see the light of the sun, unless I 
give his eyes an oblique direction." A fourth 
said, "He will never be upright, unless I bend 
his legs." A fifth said, " He will not be able to 
think, unless I press his brain." " Stop ! " said 
the traveler. " Whatever God does is well done ; 
do not pretend to know more than He ; and as He 
has given organs to this frail creature, allow those 
organs to develop themselves, to strengthen them- 
selves by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." 

God has implanted in mankind, also, all that is 
necessary to enable it to accomplish its destinies. 
There is a providential social physiology, as well 
as a providential human physiology. The social 
orarans are constituted so as to enable them to de- 
velop harmoniously in the grand air of liberty. 
Away, then, with quacks and organizers ! Away 
with their rings, and their chains, and their hooks, 
and their pincers ! Away with their artificial 



THE LAW. 291 

methods ! Away with their social workshops, their 
governmental whims, their centralization, their 
tariffs, their State nniversities, their State religions 
their banks to lend grataitouslj to everybody, their 
limitations, their restrictions, their moralizations, 
and their equalization by taxation ! And now, 
after having vainly inflicted upon the social body 
so many systems, let them end where they ought 
to have begun : reject all systems, and make trial 
of liberty — of liberty, which is an act of faith in 
God and in His work. 



.\} 



7 




j3 



RD62 -g * 

















Ho^ 








L^^f 



* ^^ ^ 







♦ oy •^*. 



^°-'*. 











' . . » 



«o 






<j. ' . • • 



o V 
















, ^ ^^ ' - " A^ 

« f . OOBBS BROS. V >v 

a I LIBRARy BINOINQ A^* "* 

MAR 81^ ^ " 



^■*d ST. AUGUSTINE ofjl"*^ <^ 




^^il^ FLA. 






